John Bercow: From the constructive and good-natured debate that I had on development in Aylesbury Vale with the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), in Westminster Hall on 4 November, the Minister of State should be in no doubt that I am an enthusiast for sustainable development, including new housing which we need. Will she, however, accept it from me that the proposed impost in the minds of some of 5,000 new homes in Little Horwood in my constituency would represent a disproportional and unjust burden? If she chooses to trifle with the people of Little Horwood and to bite them, I can assure her that they will bite back.

Robert Key: It is a great relief that the Minister knows who he is.
	Ordnance Survey is the envy of the world as a mapping institution; it is second to none, and it costs the taxpayer nothing. However, there is continuing confusion between its public duty and the private competition that it has to have as a trading fund. The pan-government agreement, which regulates how different Government Departments and agencies use Ordnance Survey, came to an end yesterday. We have no news of what is going to be put in its place, so will he tell us? When will the regulatory framework be updated and amended to bring an end to all this confusion, which is getting in the way of Ordnance Survey's excellent work?

Bob Neill: I know that the Secretary of State is a fair lady, so will she concede that her figures disguise the reality that council tax has more than doubled since the Government came to power, and that the remorseless increase in council tax is shown by all independent surveys to be one of the largest drivers in the increasing cost of living for families? The Government promised that the cost of the Mayor and the London assembly would be no more than 3p a week, but her figures disclose that the cost of London-wide services to Londoners have more than tripled under this Government, although I doubt whether Londoners regard themselves as three times safer or better transported.

Caroline Flint: As I have said, I will make an announcement soon on the locations shortlisted for the next phase of the eco-town programme. Let me say to my hon. Friend, however, that it has been an exacting process to sift more than 50 bids down to the next shortlist, and during the next phase we will be looking at how we can raise the benchmark, endeavour to get more from the developers, and make sure that engagement with local authorities, communities and others are at the heart of the next six months of work. That will include steps such as a sustainability appraisal, a planning guidance note and, importantly, making sure that it is possible to have the infrastructure for these communities to thrive.

Eric Pickles: If we are using the same slogan, that perhaps explains why there are so few Labour authorities these days, and why the Prime Minister preferred not to have the Secretary of State at the campaign launch. Under Labour, council tax has doubled and the burden on pensioners has become unbearable; no wonder the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bury, South is in a state of despair. Why did the Government give pensioners a £200 discount on their council tax in 2005 and nothing in subsequent years? Why do pensioners have to wait for an announcement of a general election before this Government show them any compassion?

Desmond Swayne: In the 1998 Command Paper, "Modern local government: in touch with the people", the Government stated:
	"The council tax is working well as a local tax. It has been widely accepted and is generally very well understood."
	Does the Secretary of State accept that that is no longer true? Who does she think is responsible?

Hazel Blears: The council tax, following hard on the heels of the poll tax, was certainly an improvement. The hon. Gentleman will know that there has been an extensive inquiry by a well-respected individual, Sir Michael Lyons, who said that the council tax remains broadly sound, that it should be retained and that it has some welcome elements as it is a partial property tax and provides good local accountability. We believe that council tax is the right way forward. We are always conscious of the need for families and people on fixed incomes to ensure that they can balance their budgets. That is why I say again that Labour authorities cost less and are better value for money. So, on 1 May people should vote Labour.

Des Browne: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the security situation in Basra. Before I begin, I would like to pay tribute to the courage of all our servicemen and women serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. I know that the House will join me in paying tribute in particular to those who have been killed or injured in the line of duty, most recently Lieutenant John Thornton and Marine David Marsh, killed in southern Afghanistan on Sunday, and the soldier killed in Iraq last Wednesday. I know that all our thoughts are with them and their families and friends.
	Our policy in Iraq consistently has been to get the Iraqis to a point where they can take control of their own destiny and security. To that end, in December 2007, we transferred responsibility for security in Basra province to the Iraqi authorities. Of the four provinces in southern Iraq for which we had responsibility, Basra was the last to transfer under provincial Iraqi control.
	The transfer of security responsibility means Iraqis taking the lead in solving the challenges and problems that they still face in their country. It therefore means Iraqis taking decisions on their own future and taking responsibility for implementing those decisions. As the Foreign Secretary and I made clear when the multinational force transferred security responsibilities to the Iraqis, the UK military's role in Basra was changing rather than ending. No longer were we in the lead, although our forces remained on hand to support the Iraqi security forces. But let me be absolutely clear: our forces continue to do a vital and necessary job in Iraq. Their roles include training and mentoring in the Basra area and on Iraq's borders, providing capabilities such as fast jet support and surveillance for Iraqi operations, and facilitating reconstruction. We describe this mission as operational overwatch. We will continue to work alongside the Iraqi security forces in southern Iraq until they are able to ensure security without our support.
	One of the reasons why the Iraqis needed our continuing support into 2008 was that they and we recognised that improving security and enforcing the rule of law in Basra would require action over the longer term. As the Iraqi Government have made clear, the main problems in Basra are criminality and militia elements that act outside the law and are unwilling to embrace democratic politics. While UK and coalition forces have done much to deliver broad levels of security, over the longer term only the Iraqis can tackle successfully criminal activity and political violence, which are often linked to social and economic factors. The events of the last week should be seen in that context.
	When I visited Iraq three weeks ago, I was briefed in detail about the Iraqi plan for improving security in Basra by General Mohan, the commander of the Iraqi security forces in Basra. General Mohan then visited Baghdad the following week to present the same plan to the Government of Iraq for endorsement. Prime Minister al-Maliki formally announced his intention to accelerate the implementation of the plan at a meeting on Sunday 23 March, where both the US and the UK were represented at a very senior level.
	Let me be clear: what we have seen over the last week is action being taken by the Government of Iraq to fulfil their responsibilities for security in a province that has transferred to Iraqi control.
	The Iraqi security forces, under the personal supervision of their Prime Minister, commenced Operation Charge of the Knights last Tuesday. As I have explained, it is an operation intended to tackle criminality and those in the city who continue to act outside the law, as a means of improving security for the people of Basra. The planning, timing and execution of the operation have been led entirely by the Iraqi Government and their security forces, and the Prime Minister's presence and leadership in Basra demonstrate the importance that they attach to it.
	Since last Tuesday, the Iraqi security forces have been conducting cordon and strike operations against criminal elements across Basra, supported by efforts to encourage militias to give up their medium and heavy weapons. An operation of that kind in a challenging urban environment was never likely to produce immediate success, and indeed the Iraqi Defence Minister, Abd al-Qadir, has acknowledged the strength of resistance that the Iraqi security forces have faced. But Iraqi operations continue, and the Government of Iraq are making steady progress towards achieving their aim of ensuring respect for the rule of law by all parties and factions. Moqtada al-Sadr's call on Sunday for his followers to abide by a ceasefire and work with the Government of Iraq to achieve security is a demonstration of that progress.
	It is too early to give a definitive or detailed assessment of how the operation has gone overall, and it would be quite wrong to seek to do so while the Iraqi security forces continue to conduct their operations in Basra and elsewhere. The situation remains fluid, although levels of fighting in Basra have reduced since the weekend. That trend has been reflected in other areas of Iraq where tensions rose in response to the operations in Basra.
	In the other provinces in the multinational division south-east area, the Iraqi security forces have dealt successfully with the security challenges that have arisen in Dhi Qar and Al-Muthanna, and though there is more tension in Maysaan, militia elements there appear to have been complying with Moqtada al-Sadr's statement. In Baghdad, too, the security situation has stabilised, and the curfew has now been lifted.
	We and our coalition partners are providing support to the Iraqis in line with our commitments under overwatch and in accordance with our usual rules of engagement. Requests for support are being made through the coalition, and I can confirm that UK forces have continued to meet all their obligations as part of the multinational corps. The support that we have provided is similar to that given in previous incidents, most recently during the disturbances in Nasiriyah and Basra over the Shi'a Ashura festival in January. It is important that the House understands the extent of that support. During the last week, British forces have—as part of the coalition effort—provided surveillance, flown fast jet missions over the city as shows of force and used our helicopters to help to resupply the Iraqi security forces.
	Logistic support to the Iraqis has included food, water and ammunition. Medical care is being provided to wounded Iraqi security personnel. We have a small number of liaison staff working in Iraqi headquarters, and as far as ground forces are concerned we have so far deployed elements of one of our three battlegroups, using tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery to provide in extremis support to Iraqi units in combat on the ground. We have deployed elements of another battlegroup to resupply one of the Iraqi headquarters. Once again, I pay tribute to the professionalism of our forces in those complex operational circumstances.
	In October, we announced our plan for drawing down UK troops from southern Iraq, from 5,000 at the time of the announcement to around 2,500 by the spring, dependent on conditions on the ground and military advice. At the end of the year, when UK forces moved into overwatch in the last province of Basra, we reduced force numbers to around 4,500. Since then, numbers have been reduced further, to their current level of around 4,000.
	Before the events of the last week, the emerging military advice, based on our assessment of current conditions then, was that further reductions might not be possible at the rate envisaged in the October announcement, although it remains our clear direction of travel and our plan. In the light of the last week's events, however, it is prudent that we pause further reductions while the current situation is unfolding.
	It is absolutely right that military commanders review plans when conditions on the ground change. I am sure that hon. Members would not expect us to do anything else, so at this stage we intend to keep our forces at the current level of around 4,000 as we work with our coalition partners and with the Iraqis to assess future requirements. I expect to be able to update the House on force levels later this month.
	What is happening in Basra is a manifestation of our policy to give Iraqis control of their own security. That road will not always be smooth. It will require political and economic progress and reconciliation, as well as military action. I commend the continuing efforts of the British business man Michael Wareing to galvanise economic development in the south, working with companies and investors from Iraq, neighbouring countries and the wider world. I have no doubt that, despite the challenges, that combination of security, political and economic support is the right way to bring about lasting stability in Basra and beyond.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman suggests that he knows that. The Iraqis have control.
	At the meeting, an assessment was made of whether the Iraqis could deal with the situation. I quote:
	"Iraqis can deal with the challenges in Basra. Not only that, they should deal with the challenges".
	That was General David Petraeus, who was present at the meeting, speaking in an interview on Monday morning with John Simpson on the BBC. The view was taken that the Iraqis could deal with these challenges in relation to how their army was equipped and the reinforcements that could be provided, and that they should deal with those challenges, because that underpinned the decision to move to provincial Iraqi control in the first place. As I spelled out, the nature of the challenges that faced us in Basra could be dealt with in the longer term only by the Iraqis.
	Day by day, the Iraqi army is better equipped, but, of course, there are still challenges. There is a challenge in the Ministry of Defence of ensuring that the Iraqi army can spend the resources available through its budget—that is improving day by day. When it is short of capability, we provide that as part of overwatch, which is exactly what we did.
	I say to the hon. Gentleman that in Iraq, and especially in Basra, what our troops do is as part of a division of the multinational corps. The commander of that corps was in Basra, and decisions about the use of our troops are made through the proper chain of command—not by politicians, but by military commanders.

Des Browne: My hon. Friend is entirely correct that we should remain on the same page as those who are in the coalition with us, particularly the United States of America. In the course of this week, the corps commander has been in Basra at the heart of the decision-making process with Prime Minister Maliki and some of our senior officers. We keep close to our American allies, who know, understand and support everything that we are doing. We all do that to support the democratic Government of Iraq, so that they can build their security forces and, more importantly, build strength in their political system and governance to allow them to sustain the level of security that the people of Basra want. The people of Basra overwhelmingly support their Prime Minister in what he is doing there.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman has a surprising ability, from a comparatively long way away from Basra, to explain exactly what is happening there. The information that is coming out of the city suggests that the Iraqi security forces are taking on a complex mixture of criminal elements and gangs, including the Jaish al-Mahdi. The JAM has attracted attention, because Moqtada al-Sadr speaks for it and is part of the political process in Iraq through those from his organisation who were elected—he is a significant player in that process. To suggest that the Iraqi security forces have only been taking on one element of the militia and criminal gang elements in Basra is to misrepresent what they have been doing.

Des Browne: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman misrepresents the position in Iraq. Our forces, and those personnel who support them from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, have been making significant progress, not only in training the Iraqi security forces, but in helping the democratically elected Iraqi Government, after decades during which the country was destroyed by the tyranny of a dictatorship, build an Administration who are increasingly becoming more competent and able to serve their own people. With respect, it is a gross misrepresentation to suggest that those achievements have not been made by those people, who have put their lives on the line.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks me how long it will be acceptable for me to come to the Dispatch Box to express condolences for the deaths of troops in operations. I do not think that it will ever be acceptable for me to do that—that is not a word that I would use. I find it deeply difficult—not for me, but for the people who I know grieve over the people who have lost their lives. That will never be acceptable as far as I am concerned. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand, I would much rather not have to do it at all.
	During my time as Secretary of State for Defence, I have had some difficult statements to make from this Dispatch Box, but I do not recollect that I have had to make a series of statements of the type that the right hon. and learned Gentleman describes. I have never made a statement at this Dispatch Box of that nature.
	This is the point at which provincial Iraqi control is being tested by the Iraqi Government themselves taking responsibility and taking decisions. It is a very difficult thing that that Government have chosen to do. There are many positive aspects to the fact that they are prepared to do it, not least the even-handedness of the Government's approach and the fact that the Prime Minister took responsibility for it. It is a difficult thing to do. We need to stay with these people and support them, in the way that we have been doing, to the extent that they need to see this through.

Harry Cohen: Will not the reduction to 2,500 by the spring be seen as a broken promise among a long list of broken promises in Iraq? Have not the Government been bounced by a factional Iraqi Government, the US forces who want to pull the strings, and new-empire-building generals? Is it not still an occupation that is massively unpopular both in Iraq and in this country? People will say, "What has changed since the disastrous Blair policy?" What has changed?

Bernard Jenkin: May I remind the Secretary of State of what the Select Committee on Defence heard last time we were in Iraq? The military advice, to which he keeps referring, was that that 5,000 was the minimum viable number for the base in Basra. Was it not therefore the height of folly to advertise a reduction in the number of troops in Basra in advance of withdrawal, even if that were the Government's intention? Does not that leave us more vulnerable than we would have been, having advertised weakness and invited the intervention of hostile forces?

Des Browne: I have had no discussions with the Iranian Government in the past few days about that matter. I have no doubt that Iranian interference in Basra and in wider southern Iraq has had some influence on those whom the Iraqi security forces have been engaging in the past six days. I have no evidence of malign involvement by Iran, specifically in the past six days, but there is no question that some of those people have been trained and equipped by Iran. I have made no bones about the strategic threat that Iran poses to that part of the region. Its involvement in southern Iraq is only part of its malign intentions for the region.

Frank Doran: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision to secure the health, safety and welfare of persons at work in offshore oil and gas industries; and for connected purposes.
	In July, we will mark the 20th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster, when 167 workers were killed in the world's worst offshore oil and gas accident. There is no doubt that, following the implementation of Lord Cullen's report, safety in the North sea has improved significantly, but recently there has been an increase in concerns. Much of the infrastructure offshore is old and requires high maintenance and investment to sustain it. There is concern that companies are cutting corners to save money or keep equipment operating.
	In 2003, two workers were killed by a gas leak on the Brent Bravo platform. In the criminal and the fatal accident proceedings that followed, serious shortcomings in maintenance on the part of Shell, the operator, were highlighted. However, the problems are not limited to one company. Between 2004 and 2007, the Health and Safety Executive's offshore safety division carried out an asset integrity programme involving targeted inspections of nearly 100 platforms. The report, now known as the "Key Programme 3" report, had some worrying things to tell us about conditions in the North sea. It states:
	"There is a poor understanding across the industry of the potential impact of degraded, non-safety critical plant and utility systems on safety critical elements in the event of a major accident. The role of asset integrity and concept of barriers is not well understood... In some companies the decline in integrity performance that started following the low oil price has not been effectively addressed and there appears to be an acceptance of this knowing that the asset is likely to be sold... Declining standards in hardware is having an adverse impact on morale in the workforce."
	The offshore oil and gas industry is crucial to the economy of this country. It makes a massive contribution to the balance of payments and to Government tax revenue. It employs about 400,000 people—approximately 20,000 offshore—and accounts for 20 per cent. of the investment made in manufacturing industry in this country each year. It is also one of our most dangerous industries. It needs the highest standards of safety, but there are barriers to those high standards, which I can wrap up in one sentence. Oil companies are resistant to change, especially when it has an impact on their internal working arrangements and relationships. On most offshore facilities, only a small number of employees are employed by the operating oil companies. The majority are employed by contractors, which usually means one large offshore service company and a number of smaller contractors providing specialist services.
	The senior person on a production platform is the offshore installation manager, who has all the powers of a ship's captain. One of the more unpleasant aspects of the offshore culture is the NRB or "not required back" system. Because of their unique status, OIMs can order anyone off the facility or insist that a person is "NRB-ed". The employer has no say in the matter. That means that unless an employer can find another job for the worker, onshore or on another platform, the employee will be dismissed. Employment tribunals have ruled that such dismissals are fair, because the contractor is obliged to accept the decision of the client.
	That is a not a dark secret, hidden away by the oil industry employers. I am told by union officials that it is a standard part of offshore contracts that the contractor has to accept the situation. The industry body, Oil and Gas UK, publishes guidance for employers on NRB. That guidance is currently under review. Even at a time of serious skills shortages in the industry, the NRB culture remains. That culture leads to a sense of job insecurity offshore and, from there, to low morale among the work force.
	In 2003, the Government introduced regulations to implement the working time directive offshore. For the past four and a half years, the oil industry has fought against implementation. The unions have won the legal argument twice, in the employment tribunal and at the employment appeal tribunal. After the expenditure of several hundred thousand pounds on legal fees by both sides, the major companies are finally accepting what was obvious to anyone who seriously studied the regulations in 2003—that those workers who do not receive the holiday entitlement set out in the regulations are entitled to extra holidays. The industry had serious issues on which it needed answers, but none that could not have been negotiated with the unions in the normal way.
	In the meantime, a work force that had to suffer a long history of having a two-class employment system—first class for those who worked for an oil company, and second class for those who worked for a contractor—developed a real sense of grievance. They felt that they were being denied the holiday time to which they were entitled and which was already enjoyed by their first-class co-workers in the oil industry. The industry approach seemed a particularly insensitive and ham-fisted way of dealing with a human problem and one that took no account of the effect on the morale of the work force.
	Then, there is the permit to work system. At the root of virtually every significant accident in the North sea oil and gas industry, including Piper Alpha, is a failure in the permit to work system. Every company insists on keeping its own individual system; yet the pattern of work offshore nowadays means that many workers, particularly those with special skills, work on a number of installations. In each different workplace, they have to deal with a different permit to work system.
	It has been recognised for many years that safety would be improved if there were a common system that everyone could become familiar with. Experience also suggests that there could also be economic savings to adopting such a system. The unions want it, the Health and Safety Executive wants it and many of the contracting companies want it. The Norwegians have it, as do, just recently, the Dutch. What we have is endless technical committees and companies trying to cling on to their special system. Again, that has a negative impact on the morale of the work force.
	There is huge investment in safety in our oil and gas industry, but it is all meaningless unless the human aspects are addressed. I have raised three critical areas—maintenance, employment practices and working systems—where I believe the industry acts and has acted to protect narrow interests. It has ignored the wider impact of its decisions, particularly on the morale of its work force and therefore on the safety regime offshore.
	In response to the issues that I have raised, my Bill would improve the safety system in the offshore oil and gas industry by doing two things. First, there are many areas of offshore work that require greater external scrutiny, consideration and perhaps intervention. The permit to work system is just one area where the industry collectively and individually has failed to take a wider view and recognise that the interests of safety override individual company preferences. My Bill would strengthen the powers of the HSE to make regulations in areas where there is evidence that common systems are necessary to improve safety.
	Secondly, my Bill would bring the regulations dealing with safety committees and safety representatives in the offshore oil and gas industry into line with the regulations in onshore workplaces. The key difference between the two systems is that the onshore regulations have a statutory trade union involvement. The unions can appoint safety reps; they will support them and provide them with professional advice and support wherever necessary. They allow the safety reps to be much more independent of management, which strengthens the safety systems, gives workers confidence and encourages greater involvement and commitment to safety.
	Those two measures, by giving the Health and Safety Executive the power to intervene to create common systems where appropriate and to bring a more independent element to the safety committee and representative systems, would, I believe, go a long way to improving the overall safety system in the North sea oil and gas industry. I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frank Doran, Miss Anne Begg, Mr. Anthony Wright, Mr. Kevan Jones, Mr. Alistair Carmichael, Sir Robert Smith, Ms Dari Taylor, Andrew Miller, Mark Lazarowicz, Mr. Russell Brown and Jim Sheridan.

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The primary duty of any Government is to secure the safety of all their citizens. The threat we face from terrorism today is very different in scale and nature from any that we have faced in the past. It is more ruthless, very often aiming to cause mass civilian casualties, without warning, using suicide attacks and even chemical, biological or radiological weapons. It is international, drawing upon loosely affiliated networks across the globe that share not only an ideology, but also personnel, training and funds. It is more complex, exploiting new technology to plan and to perpetrate attacks; and it is of an unprecedented scale, with more than 200 groupings or networks and about 2,000 individuals being monitored by the police and the Security Service in the UK alone. That figure is the highest it has been, and represents a new and sustained level of activity by those who wish to kill and maim and to undermine the values that we all share in this country.
	The threat we face is serious and urgent. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out in his statement on the national security strategy, the new threats we face demand new responses from us.

Jacqui Smith: That is, of course, my responsibility as Home Secretary, and our responsibility as a Government—and I believe it is our broader responsibility as parliamentarians as well.
	We have made far-reaching changes to our strategy to deal with terrorism, and created the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism within Government to co-ordinate our response. We have significantly increased the resources available to deal with terrorism. We have redoubled our efforts to prevent violent extremism from taking hold in the first place—because our long-term challenge is to stop people becoming, or supporting, terrorists in the first place. With new funding to support communities and organisations tackling those who promote violent extremism, we will take on the ideologues and disrupt their efforts to radicalise individuals at risk in our society.

Jacqui Smith: I have taken a flurry of interventions, so I shall make a little more progress and then take some more interventions, particularly when I come to the issue of pre-charge detention.
	Over the past two years we have comprehensively reviewed our existing legislation, identifying areas where we could do more to deal with the current and emerging threat. In particular we want to ensure, first, that full use can be made of all information when investigating and prosecuting terrorist crimes, and secondly that we have effective measures in place to deal with terrorist suspects after they have been charged and convicted.
	On the first of those, the Bill contains measures: to provide the proper statutory framework to retain and use DNA and other forensic material related to terrorism; to provide statutory gateways for the sharing of information with the security and intelligence agencies; and to make sure that all information can be used to defend challenges against asset-freezing decisions. The Bill will allow post-charge questioning of terrorist suspects, which many have called for. Taken together with the other measures in the Bill, that will help the police and prosecutors to ensure more successful terrorism prosecutions.
	Post conviction, the Bill will ensure that those found guilty of terrorist-related offences receive a sentence that reflects the seriousness of their crimes. There will be a new requirement on convicted terrorists to provide the police with key personal information when they are released from custody, strengthening the arrangements for monitoring terrorist offenders in the community.
	From the outset, my approach to this Bill has been to emphasise the importance of consultation and consensus-building. We have consulted widely, and at length, with hon. Members, the public, the police, civil liberties organisations, community groups and the judiciary. Our proposals have been scrutinised by relevant Committees here in Parliament, and by Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. I believe that many measures in this Bill have already achieved broad support.

Michael Howard: On 6 November last, when the Home Secretary was asked by how long the 28-day period should be extended, she said, "I don't know". When did she change her mind?

Jacqui Smith: As I shall say when I make my argument, in my view the maximum time period is not the most important issue. The most important issue is whether people feel that in all circumstances in the future there would never be a time when 28 days would be insufficient. If people believe that, the argument arises of how and through what process it would be possible to extend beyond that.

Jacqui Smith: The example to which the hon. Gentleman refers involves charges made after the event, but he repeats a claim made by many people in the course of this argument—that, compared with other comparable democracies, this country takes a disproportionate approach to these matters. I ask hon. Members to consider what happens in France, where the investigative magistrates system means that people are often held for up to four years while terrorist cases are investigated— [ Interruption. ] The point being that it is actually quite difficult to make comparisons between the regime in the UK and that in other countries; only the other day, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner described it as like comparing apples and goats. There is a significant difference. People who make the case—as some have done in putting forward their argument—that we should look to regimes such as Russia or even Zimbabwe as examples of the way in which we should carry out— [ Interruption. ] People have made the argument in terms of such international comparisons, so I have to ask Members whether they think that all things considered we have a fairer and better regime in the UK than in some other countries. Notwithstanding the difficulty of making comparisons, I think they will accept that we do.

George Howarth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is being generous in giving way. A good comparison is that of wearing a hard hat on a building society— [ Interruption. ] Not the Northern Rock. On a building site, someone may hope that a brick will never fall on their head, but it is as well to be prepared for the possibility that that might happen.

David Davis: To deal with this problem, in 2000, a criminal offence of withholding passwords and encryption keys to hard drives was passed into law. The offence of using such things for terrorism has been increased recently. How often has that offence been used in terrorist cases?

Jacqui Smith: For effort, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. All those that she has prayed in aid in support of her Bill today are those whose jurisdiction extends only to England and Wales. Has she consulted the police in Scotland? Has she consulted Scotland's senior Law Officer and the head of the prosecution service, the Lord Advocate, and does she have the support of the Lord Advocate—an independent, non-political Law Officer—for the measures that she has brought before the House today?

Jacqui Smith: During the course of the Bill's development, there has been considerable discussion with representatives of the Scottish Executive, and that will continue during its consideration.
	The measures in the Bill are precautionary, proportionate and necessary if we are to have in place protections to deal with the exceptional circumstances that none of us want to see happen, but which all of us have a duty to prepare for, in case they do. I do not anticipate that even in these circumstances we shall often need to invoke the reserve power. Indeed, it is my sincere hope that we will never need to use these powers. But in view of the nature and scale of the terrorist threat that I have set out today, I would rather have the necessary powers on the statute book, there for use if we need them, than face the prospect of terrorist suspects walking free because the police have not been given the time that they need to gather evidence and charge them with an offence.
	International terrorism presents one of the greatest threats to the UK. In this country we will always respond to terrorism through the rule of law and the criminal justice system. We task our police, our prosecutors and our courts with bringing to justice those who threaten British lives and our way of life through terrorism. They deserve our support as parliamentarians in providing the tools that they need to pursue, to investigate and to prosecute, and they need us to adapt those tools as circumstances change. I commend the Bill to the House.

David Davis: Where possible, the Conservative party will always strive for consensus on security matters. In this Bill, there is much that we can support, and we will work with the Government to improve and strengthen the Bill in those areas. However, there is a line that a free country cannot cross without convincing justification. I have always taken Benjamin Franklin's view that
	"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".
	However, the proposal to extend detention without charge up to 42 days gives up essential liberties without delivering any additional, even temporary, safety. In fact, it is likely to make us less, not more, safe.
	Last October, the Prime Minister said that
	"the character of our country will be defined by how we write the next chapter of British liberty—by whether we do so responsibly and in a way that respects and builds on our traditions, and progressively adds to and enlarges rather then reduces the sphere of freedom."
	The Prime Minister was right. Regrettably, some of what is proposed today does precisely the opposite.
	The Bill contains many detailed provisions. We have called for some of the measures for years, such as post-charge questioning, and we welcome action at last in that area. There are measures that we can support in principle, such as making terrorism an aggravating factor in sentencing, notification requirements for those convicted of terrorist offences and travel restrictions on those convicted of terrorist offences. We may challenge the Government on other issues, depending on their case.
	In her speech, the Home Secretary did not cover the proposal to appoint a coroner, to forbid the appointment of a jury and to hold an inquest in secret when terrorism is involved. Why can that not be achieved by having security-cleared coroners and juries similar to those used in secret espionage trials in the cold war? I want the Minister to answer that question when he replies to the debate.

David Davis: In a minute, I shall come to exactly the hon. Gentleman's case and work through it for him; he is getting a bit ahead of himself.
	Before he was nobbled by No. 10, even Lord West, the Government security Minister, said when he was asked that he was not convinced of the need for the extension. I have spoken to the police— [ Interruption. ] The Home Secretary can choose to believe it or not. The police have coped perfectly well in every terrorist investigation that this country has faced to date. She organised some of the meetings, so she knows who they are. Lord Dear, the former chief constable for the west midlands, writing yesterday, said that an extension is unnecessary and that many chief constables agree privately with that assessment. She can challenge that, too, if she wishes.

David Davis: The Home Secretary cited Ken Jones, the ACPO chief, at one point. I remember that when he first raised this issue I asked him directly—this is a conversation that I can repeat to her, as can he—whether he had at that point checked with the TAM committee, because I had been told by a member of that committee that he had not, and he said that, honestly, no he had not. I am afraid that the raw truth is that the headline, "Senior public official agrees with Government", is an unsurprising one, and that many chief officers are worried about this, for reasons on which I am about to elaborate.
	Instead of presenting evidence, the Government have tried, unsuccessfully, to make two hypothetical cases, one of which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). The first is the sort of case originally laid out by Andy Hayman, a previous senior terrorism officer, to justify 90 days. He described a scenario with more than 20 suspects, multiple locations, multiple targets, and multiple computers with encrypted files in different languages and dependent on foreign intelligence—a scenario posing an imminent threat and requiring early arrests. In fact, Operation Overt, the investigation into the alleged plot to attack 10 airliners at Heathrow in 2006, had every one of those characteristics; the court case is going to start this week. It was the biggest single terrorist plot that Britain has ever faced, yet the police were able to charge every suspect within 28 days, and those facing the most serious charge—conspiracy to murder—were charged within 21 days. Of the five held until the 27th or 28th day, two were charged with serious but lesser—significantly lesser—offences based on evidence that the police obtained before the 28 days, and three were innocent. Let us remember this point. Six people in total have gone the full 28 days; fully half those people were innocent. Apart from the natural justice aspect—

David Davis: The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. We will be judged on our judgments—the judgment that we bring to bear to improve, enhance and maximise the protection of the public. The argument that I shall continue to make is that the measures proposed will not do that. When the Select Committee on Home Affairs took evidence on the event to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, Rachel North appeared on behalf of the victims. When asked about 42 days, she effectively said, "Not in my name". I asked the right hon. Gentleman to intervene when he initially said that he objected to the word "innocent"—

David Davis: And I am going to give him the difference between the two. He objected to the word innocent—

David Davis: My hon. Friend, who is well informed and has strong and direct constituency interest in the matter, is right.  [Interruption.] I say to the Home Secretary, who speaks from a sedentary position, that the Prime Minister's strategy unit found pretty much the same thing some time ago and there is not much sign of improvement.

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman well knows that, sadly, my party is not yet in a position to carry the House on its own. We look forward to that day, but the reality was that his party was the one that wanted to compromise on 28 days. That is precisely why, to avert the greater harm, we fell in with that proposal. However, I think we should discuss whether it might be desirable to consider regularly, perhaps annually, as we have for other elements of terrorism legislation, whether it is necessary to extend up to the 28 days. My current judgment is that such an extension is justifiable.
	It is already possible for someone to be held for four weeks without their knowing what they are charged with or being able to prepare any defence. To extend that to six weeks—a 50 per cent. increase—is deeply intrusive into hard-won civil liberties. Anyone present could, as a result of mistaken identity—there are many such cases on record—be held for six weeks in such a way. Any innocent citizen going about their normal life could be subject to a police and security services mistake.
	That has already happened, with three people held for nearly the maximum period under existing law and then released without charge. It was also the case with 23-year-old Mohammed Abdul Kahar and 20-year-old Abul Koyair, after a raid on their home in Forest Gate, London, during which Mr. Kahar was shot in the shoulder. Both were later released without charge. Six Pakistani men were arrested at Gatwick on suspicion of terrorism in January this year, but were later released when it emerged they were all relatives of a key aide of General Musharraf. Mistakes are human. As we have heard from Opposition Members, it is certainly possible for the security services to make serious errors. I make no assumption that the errors are malicious; it is simply in the nature of being human that mistakes are made.
	As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) pointed out, a mistake with terrible consequences was made in the extradition case of Lotfi Raissi, who spent five months in Belmarsh, accused of being a ringleader in the 9/11 attacks on the twin towers. The Algerian pilot suffered extraordinary stress, the loss of his job, blacklisting which denied him his right to fly, and the breakdown of his marriage. The only question now is whether he is entitled to compensation. An even more serious mistake was made by the police in the case of Jean Charles de Menezes. I make this point again merely to remind the House that the law exists to protect the weak, and mistakes can and do happen that can prove devastating for those involved. The incarceration of an innocent person for six weeks is not a matter to be taken lightly.
	The Home Secretary argued that the extension may be necessary because of the complexity of information technology, and the sheer scale of evidence and encryption. The point on encryption was devastatingly dealt with by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), when he pointed out that someone can be charged on this count alone under part III of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, section 49 of which makes it an offence not to disclose a key to protected information. The maximum penalty—even if we do not go down the contempt of court road that he suggested—is two years' imprisonment, during which time other offences could certainly be investigated.
	For the sake of the argument, however, let us assume that the material can be read. The Home Secretary has also argued that cases are becoming extraordinarily complex. In one recent case that she mentioned, there were three terabytes of evidence on computer—the equivalent of a library a third the size of the US Library of Congress or more than 10 million books. This point is a boomerang for the Government, because an extension of a mere two weeks would be entirely useless if each bit of evidence had to waded through and assessed as the Home Secretary implies. Indeed, if it were necessary to read material equivalent to a third of the US Library of Congress within the proposed legal limit of 42 days, I calculate that that would require 238,095 police officers working eight-hour shifts. That is all the police officers in this country, plus 100,000 on loan from a friendly neighbour.  [Interruption.] If the Government really believe that this is a cogent point— [Interruption.] Would the Home Secretary like to intervene? If the Government really believe that this is a cogent point, they would need to propose a period of detention far longer— [Interruption.]

Christopher Huhne: I was merely referring to the traditional period of one day, and I shall now continue that point by observing that the United States and two other common law jurisdictions—South Africa and New Zealand—have extended the period to two days. Ireland has seven days—as, indeed, we had in extremis when we were fighting the more deadly threat in sheer numbers of republican terrorism. Only in Australia has the period of detention been extended to 12 days, but it is still less than half the period under our own current legislation, let alone under what is proposed. Also, there are specific reasons for doing that in Australia, as the law has significant restrictions on questioning, including time restrictions.
	Are all these countries that are so comparable to our own country in their legal traditions all so wrong? Are the threats that we face so unique that they require us to abandon our historical safeguards against the abuse of state power? The Liberal Democrats are not persuaded.
	Moreover, there is a real risk that these provisions will prove to be wholly counter-productive in the prosecution of terror. Effective policing always requires the co-operation of the policed, without which intelligence is almost impossible to glean. Where will the willing informers be if the British state is seen to have declared war on a minority community? Prosecution requires witnesses to give evidence, but will the witnesses be forthcoming if their families and friends feel that they are aiding and abetting a state that is using disproportionate and discriminatory powers?
	These are not idle worries. The Home Affairs Committee has stated:
	"Extended pre-charge detention carries the danger, which should not be underestimated, of antagonising many who currently recognise the need for cooperating with the police".
	The Equality and Human Rights Commission astonishingly warned yesterday that if this legislation went through, it might take the Government to court. It also stated:
	"In relation to the principle of non-discrimination, the Commission is concerned as to the potentially adverse impact the proposals will have on Muslim and other ethnic minority communities and on community relations more generally."
	It continued:
	"The Commission believes, if the Bill becomes law, this will present difficulties for policing 'with consent' and for the prevention and detection of terrorist offences where co-operation and public confidence in the police service is an important consideration."
	Having heard what the hon. Member for Foyle has had to say, I do not seek to draw an exact parallel between the proposals in the Bill and what happened when internment was imposed in Northern Ireland on 9 August 1971. Internment is still the most dreadful warning of what can happen when a civilised and democratic state is seen by a large part of its own community to have stooped to the methods it abhors. Internment triggered a deluge of violence, leading to 25 deaths within the month. The remaining trust, eroded as it had been, between the Catholic community in Northern Ireland and the security services was destroyed , and the chance of winning hearts and minds had gone for ever. It was arguably the point at which the British state could no longer win the peace. That was ultimately recognised with the end of internment in December 1975.
	I should say something at this point about the much-vaunted parliamentary safeguards suggested by the Home Secretary. We are told that this would not be an automatic extension of the period of detention without charge, because Parliament would have to debate the matter. However, the proposals only guarantee that any parliamentary debate would be held 16 days after the maximum length of time that a suspect could be held. By that time, either the suspect would be charged, in which case any debate would be dealing with a matter that was sub judice, or they would have been released without charge, in which case the debate would be academic.

Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has rightly referred to intercept evidence being available for use, for example with regard to the asset-freezing procedures. Will he also bear in mind that the Bill provides that such material can be excluded from the knowledge of the citizen and that the citizen's interest be represented only by a special advocate? Does he agree that such an arrangement would be profoundly unsatisfactory?

Christopher Huhne: I am open to the possibility—I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman has thought this through—that there must be a screening procedure in matters of national security. I understand that that is the case in the jurisdictions of both the United States and Australia. The details of these matters need to be gone through in Committee. I agree with him that we must ensure that proper and adequate safeguards are put in place for the defendant.
	It should be possible to continue questioning someone after they have been charged with an offence and not merely, as the Bill proposes, on that particular offence or on terrorist offences, but potentially on others related to it. That would allow an escalation of charges as evidence is assessed and accumulated. Equally, proper safeguards of the sort set out by the Joint Committee on Human Rights must be in place, and those are not contained in this Bill as they should be. I am thinking about video recording, the presence of legal advisers, a prohibition on repeated and harassing questioning, and so forth. The prosecuting authorities should be able to give assurances to key witnesses, not just about witness protection, but about immunity from prosecution.
	Perhaps the most important change since this House last discussed these matters has already happened. I am talking about the reduction in the threshold applied by the Director of Public Prosecutions from the 50 per cent. likelihood of a conviction before proceeding with a charge. I heard the debate between the Front-Bench spokespeople for the Government and the official Opposition. When one examines Sir Ken Macdonald's evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, one clearly sees that the official Opposition have the matter when it comes to the points that the DPP was making. It has never been the case that the CPS has to have a court-ready case at the point of charge, and there is inevitably flexibility in making that decision. That flexibility is precisely what has persuaded some of the foremost advocates of 90 days' detention two years ago now to oppose an extension even to 42 days. Lord Falconer, the former Lord Chancellor, has said:
	"If it is not necessary because you don't need it to fight terrorism effectively, then you shouldn't do it. I strongly believe that the debate about should it be 28 days, 42 days or 90 days has moved on because of the threshold standard. We should recognise that we have addressed effectively the question of the time it takes to investigate".
	We also have this on the authority of Sir Ken Macdonald, the DPP. In his evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, to which I referred when I intervened on the Home Secretary, he stated that
	"if the prosecutor is considering a case in which, if there was a charge, bail would not be appropriate, and that would cover all terrorist cases, I am sure, the prosecutor can charge on the basis of reasonable suspicion, as long as the case is kept under review and the full code test can be applied as soon as practically possible."
	The full code test is that the prospect of conviction is more likely than not. Sir Ken went on:
	"I think an analysis might lead you to conclude that, if after 25 or 26 days you could not find a reasonable suspicion to justify a charging decision, it might be quite difficult for a prosecutor to persuade a court that, even though there is not presently reasonable suspicion to justify the threshold charge, a man or a woman should be kept in custody for a longer period".
	Sir Ken made it clear that he was satisfied with the position as it stands in respect of detention without charge. The Government's attempt to pray him in aid of their position is quite wrong.
	Moreover, Sir Ken's approach is working. He makes that clear in an interview with  The Times today, which has appeared with felicitous timing. The figures suggest that the DPP and the CPS have more room to amend their judgments about charging beyond the flexibility that they have already described. If the charging decision were broadly in line with the policy as it has been declared to the Home Affairs Committee—that is, that a prosecution would be more likely than not—we would expect a broadly equal balance of convictions and acquittals at the end of the trial. However, the CPS special counter-terrorism unit has enjoyed a 92 per cent. conviction rate against 77 per cent. in other trials. Since the beginning of last year, Sir Ken's figures show an extraordinary consistency. The conviction rate, including those who plead guilty, is 92 per cent. for cases that concluded last year and 92 per cent. for the cases so far this year. There is clearly a lot of room left, in his judgment, to continue to apply flexibility.
	The Liberal Democrats accept that our society faces a serious threat from al-Qaeda and from terrorism. In certain respects, the threat is greater than it was during the long fight against republican terrorism. These terrorists are not afraid to die, they do not give warnings and they want to cause mass casualties. We do not deny the need to reinforce our defences against such a threat or to ensure that we have the legislative powers to deal with it. However, the argument is a debate about means, not ends. The means that the Government have proposed are not proportionate to the threat and are not grounded in the reality of the response from many ethnic minority communities. They run a terrible risk of being counter-productive.
	Some elements of the Bill are struggling to emerge as an alternative approach to the prosecution of terrorists: the use of intercept evidence and post-charge questioning. There is emerging consensus on an approach that does not play the numbers game with the days of detention but would implement practical measures that are consistent with our traditions. We will not vote against the Bill on Second Reading because we aim to nurture that approach and to delete the destructive positions for increased detention without charge that could in our view prove injurious to civil liberties and the successful prosecution of terrorism. Whatever else, we must never become what we are fighting.
	Let me end with an appeal to the Home Secretary. We are in favour of consensus. We strive for it. Yes, there is new consensus. It encompasses the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives, many Labour rebels, Justice, Liberty, Sir Ken Macdonald, Lord Goldsmith, Lord Falconer, former chief constables such as Lord Dear, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Home Affairs Committee and the Equality and Human Rights Commission—the list goes on. If the Government were serious about consensus, they would realise that public and expert opinion does not want a further extension of pre-charge detention. They should join the consensus now and amend the Bill.

Keith Vaz: The Home Secretary, the shadow Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) have reminded the House of the importance of the debate. The Home Affairs Committee concluded last year:
	"It is clear both from the evidence given to us and from other sources...that the terrorist threat facing the UK is real, acute and growing."
	The common cause among all parties, regardless of their views on the extension of the period of detention, is the acknowledgement that terrorists want to destroy our way of life, our liberty and our democracy. We know this from the country's leading authority on security, the MI5 director-general, Jonathan Evans. Last November, in a speech to the Society of Editors, he estimated that at least 2,000 individuals posed a direct threat to our security and added:
	"There remains a steady flow of new recruits to the extremist cause".
	That is the highest number ever, and there is no sign of its reducing.
	An important role of a Government, if not the most important, is the protection of their citizens. In the aftermath of the 7/7 attacks in 2005, the Government and Parliament have been engaged in a constant debate, most notably on the power to detain individuals suspected of terrorist offences without charge, and on the fine judgment that has to be made on the balance between individual liberty and collective security. There is now a new world order, with new dangers and a need for new ways to deal with them.
	I want to welcome the conciliatory and open-minded approach of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary in developing the Bill. Its provision on pre-charge detention has moved significantly from the proposals that we first heard last July. Since the Government's bid for 90 days, the rhetoric has been abandoned. In fact, they have accepted most of the Select Committee's recommendations. The Home Secretary has appeared before the Committee twice and answered more than 149 questions. She has met many right hon. and hon. Members.
	During the Committee's inquiry, which we extended, we took evidence from a wide range of people and groups. Many of them have been referred to already: the Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald; Lord Goldsmith; Shami Chakrabarti from Liberty; the Metropolitan police; the Forest Gate Two, Mohammed Abdul Kahar and Abul Koyair; and the Opposition spokespersons, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg).

John Heppell: I am glad that someone is better read than I am. The bottom line is that those organisations exist to protect human rights. That is their raison d'être, but I remind the House that we have duty to make sure that we protect the human rights of all of our citizens. If we do not fulfil that duty, we are failing as Members of Parliament,
	Unlike Liberty, however, we also have a duty to protect people's lives. I do not say that that organisation goes out of its way to threaten people's lives, but the decisions that we make in this House must strike the right balance between those duties, and we have to recognise that there are two sides to this argument.
	From reading the papers, people outside the House might feel that the debate is only about pre-trial detention, but the Bill is about much more than that. The Government are not obsessed about 28 days, although everyone else is. The problem is that people have made that their cause célèbre: they have drawn a line in the sand and said, "We will go no further, this is it. We're not going to change our minds about 28 days." In fact, it is clear from the debate that some hon. Members would prefer 14 days to 28, or even fewer than 14. Unfortunately, the contention that the Government will not be able to change people's minds on this issue was made long before the Home Secretary talked about trying to get some consensus together.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman says that everyone in the House has settled views, but it has been said again and again in the debate that a state of emergency might warrant going beyond 28 days. It was suggested to the Government and those on the Treasury Bench—I note that they are all absent at the moment—that the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 could be beefed up in those circumstances, but the Home Secretary has decided not to do that.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) suggests that some people have got caught in a rut on this matter of pre-charge detention, whereas I believe that it is the Home Secretary who has got caught. The principal difficulty is that she has not been able to show any proper flexibility at all.

John Heppell: No, I cannot give way as I have no more time.
	There may be a need to go beyond 28 days. If so, the sensible thing would be to work out how to do so coolly and calmly in proper debate rather than waiting until we need to do it and have to pass knee-jerk legislation to deal with the situation. I cannot understand the logic of waiting until we have passed the trap before we do anything. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) mentioned hard hats. I would put it much more simply: would anybody wait until after the fire to discuss what insurance policy to take out? No, they want the insurance policy first.
	What annoys me about some of the debate is that Parliament is being dismissed—as a sham, one hon. Member said. Some of the briefings say that the reserve power would be exactly the same as a power without reserve judgment because we could not have the legislation in place all the time. What would that mean in practical terms? To make sure that the power was on the statute book and could be used at all times, the Home Secretary would need to make eight or nine statements every year telling us that the Government were proposing to invoke the power. There would have to be eight or nine debates about the power every year to ensure that the Home Secretary could keep it in place. There would have to be eight or nine votes on the power every year. Come on—that will not happen. No Home Secretary from my party or any other party will risk that many hostile debates—because they would always be hostile.
	Some people go further and say that use of the power could stop before the 30 days were up and then start again a bit later. I am not sure whether that would be possible technically, but what would happen in the House? Members on the Opposition Benches would be on their feet screaming and shouting. Members on the Labour Benches would be on their feet screaming and shouting. The media and the whole country would be screaming and shouting. In those circumstances, does the House believe that such an abuse could hold? The Government would not be defending 42 days; they would have to defend even 28 days, because we would still have to vote on that every year. If everybody saw that there was abuse of the system, they would vote against the 28 days and the whole pack of cards would fall.
	I do not know the Civil Contingencies Act well but I cannot believe that its provisions can be so easily adapted. If that were possible, I should be looking forward to lobbying from Liberty about why we were taking such draconian measures—that is how the provisions of the Counter-Terrorism Bill are being described. In that case, why are the same provisions in the Civil Contingencies Act not considered draconian? There have been more red herrings in this debate than even Agatha Christie could stand.
	The proposal is balanced; it says, "We recognise that there is a problem. We are not asking for powers. We are asking for a reserve capacity to invoke powers in exceptional circumstances." The Director of Public Prosecutions and the chief police officer would have to go to the Home Secretary. A statement would have to be made to the House within two days. A debate, with a vote, would have to be held in the House within 30 days. That is a measured approach.
	I would rather make sure that we protect not just people's human rights, but their lives too. We are talking about life and death matters and we cannot take them lightly. We carry their weight on our shoulders. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) talked about one of his constituents who had been seriously injured. That could be any of our constituents—we need to guard against it.

George Galloway: Not since Rocky Marciano fought Don Cockell has there been a more one-sided contest than we have witnessed this afternoon and this evening in the debate. Indeed, if the House will forgive my saying so, the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) personified Don Cockell in the debate, as the only supporter of the measures to speak so far—it is now 7.15 in the evening. It is such a rout that it almost feels like a liberty to join in. It is such a rout that if the measure passes with those provisions intact—if not tonight, later—it will be a triumph for party management but a serious defeat for democratic politics in this country.
	It is a funny old world, Mr. Deputy Speaker—as a former Prime Minister once said. We heard a brilliant, bristling defence of liberty from the Tory Front Bench, backed by a brace of former Ministers in Mrs. Thatcher's Government, while Labour Members—with honourable exceptions, I grant—will be asked by their Whips to vote the measure through, yet year after year after year, as my friend, the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), pointed out, Labour Members voted against the prevention of terrorism Acts on precisely the grounds that have been best adduced by the Opposition against the measure today: namely, that such laws sacrifice our liberties but guarantee us no extra securities. On the contrary, they act as a recruiting sergeant for those who want to destroy our liberties still further.
	The Home Secretary was wrong when she described the threat that Britain faces as being on an unprecedented scale. The IRA campaign in Britain was far deadlier than the campaign of Islamist extremists nowadays. The Prime Minister came within an inch of losing her life in a hotel in Brighton. Members of Parliament were killed in Brighton, in this building and in their homes. A rocket was fired through the Cabinet window and the Cabinet had to take cover under the Cabinet table. There were bombs in Parliament, bombs in the Tower of London and bombs on the underground; there were bombs everywhere in this country but—at least on this side of the water—we never sacrificed the essential liberties that we are being asked to sacrifice in this flawed strategy, which will be my point in the four minutes remaining for my speech.
	Yes, the Bill is an egregious measure and, yes, if it goes ahead it will make things that little bit more difficult, but it is part of a flawed strategy. If I may quote myself, when the House was recalled after the atrocities of 9/11, I said—sitting on the Labour Benches as I did at the time—that if we handled things in the wrong way we would create 10,000 new bin Ladens. That is exactly what will happen if we pursue policies such as these proposals, which act as a recruiting sergeant for extremism.
	I know that extremist Islamist organisations are preying on the fringes of the Muslim community. I have been a victim of them myself, and much more deadly was what happened to the victims in Aldgate East underground station in my constituency whom I watched being carried by the tube workers and the emergency services on 7/7, or those being carried into the Royal London hospital in my constituency. I know that there is a problem. There are extremists, trying to lure young Muslims—boys mainly, but girls, too—on to the rocks of separatism, extremism and violence. But our point in opposing this measure is that those who support it are assisting those people. It is not, to quote the shadow Home Secretary, a human rights point; it is actually a security point.
	We are making our avowed purpose more difficult to achieve by telling people in the Muslim community, who already feel beleaguered and besieged and who are told constantly in the yellow press and by some politicians that they are somehow an enemy within. We are telling them that we are ready to suspend and abolish the liberties and the democracy that we say we hold dear—so dear that we are ready to invade other countries to impose it—at the first whiff of grapeshot. The 55 dead on 7/7 was far more than a whiff of grapeshot—that is true—but if we by this measure recruit new allies for bin Ladenism and for the mediaeval obscurantist mindset that he represents, we will, as has been said many times here, do the terrorists' work for them.

George Galloway: Indeed. I was about to turn to that very point. If Ministers listen to no one else in the debate, let them read the speech—still better, watch the video—of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). It was the most important speech that was made in the House today. He is here to tell us from the streets of the north of Ireland that the securocratic approach—the approach of the suspension and abandonment of liberty in defence of liberty—was fundamentally flawed and recruited thousands of new soldiers for the IRA campaign, to which I previously referred.
	I represent tens of thousands of Muslims. Even my worst enemy in the House—there are a few—would concede that I have more interface with Muslims in Britain, especially young Muslims, than virtually anyone else all over this country. In the past week, as a candidate in the London assembly elections, I have been to three major Muslim events—in Barking, in Newham and in Tower Hamlets—and I will attend many more. I must tell Members—I ask them to believe this—that young Muslims in Britain are feeling besieged and unfairly put upon, and they do not need a radical cleric to make them feel that way. The idea that there are ideologues out there who are responsible for the radicalisation of Muslim youth is fundamentally flawed. It is not the imams or the ideologues who are radicalising young Muslims in Britain and, indeed, around the world.
	All young Muslims have to do to be radicalised is to switch on the television news and look at the pictures from Palestine, look at the pictures from Iraq and look at the double standards being employed by western statesmen in relation to those kinds of conflict. That is what is radicalising the young Muslims here and abroad, and it will not be solved by this measure; it will be made worse. That is the truth of it. So I beg the Government, who have already got so many problems that even I am feeling sorry for them—notwithstanding what I said earlier, I do not want the Opposition to be sitting on the Government side in the next Parliament—to turn back from this folly. Folly enough there has been. Turn back from this folly before it is too late.

Frank Dobson: Today's debate has been about not whether to counter terrorism, but how best to counter terrorism. Whenever we do that, we have to address the unavoidable ethical and practical dilemmas faced by any open democratic society that is subject to the threat of terrorism. Much of the Bill is on the right lines, but the proposal to extend detention without charge beyond 28 days is not.
	I understand why Ministers have come forward with that proposal, and I do not question their motives. I know that Ministers feel that they will be responsible if things go wrong and people are killed. I know that that is why they want to err on the side of what they see as security, set against civil liberty. But I think that what they propose is wrong—wrong in principle and likely to be counter-productive in practice.
	In recent times, a lot of attention has been paid to what it means to be British. Well, one thing it means is that we British do not allow the police or politicians to lock people up for a long time without charge. That is not some trendy, fashionable bit of political correctness; it was laid down in Magna Carta in 1215 AD, and it has been followed in the English-speaking, common-law democracies ever since. In Canada, the maximum is just one day. In the USA, South Africa and New Zealand, it is two days; in Ireland, seven days; and in Australia, 12.
	Here in Britain, we already have a maximum of 28 days—more than twice as long as anyone else—yet the Government are saying that a further extension is necessary because anti-terrorist investigations can take a long time. However, as has been made clear today, other people equally involved and equally well informed believe that the current limit is quite long enough. In any case, there are alternative and better ways to deal with the problem of protracted investigations.
	The Government have accepted the proposal, which I made some years ago, that the law should be changed to permit suspects to be questioned after they have been charged. So, suspects could be charged with lesser offences related to terrorism and, if appropriate, charged with greater offences later. That has also been made easier by the lowering of the threshold for deciding that a suspect should be charged, and we have to remember that all this is set against the background that no one can be arrested unless there are grounds for suspecting them in the first place. Yet the Government now propose on top of all those changes, which would strengthen the hands of the police, to allow the Home Secretary—not in a crisis, but in individual cases—to hold suspects for longer than 28 days without charge on the say-so of the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
	It has been suggested that that power would be constrained if it were subject to a parliamentary debate. It certainly would be a constitutional novelty: Parliament being recommended by the Government to deprive an individual citizen of their liberty, presumably on a whipped vote. To describe that as a kangaroo court would be an insult to kangaroos. Such a change would not be a defeat for terrorism; it would be a win for the terrorists.
	Whatever the motives of the misguided zealots who become suicide bombers, the evil people promoting terrorism know that no democracy has ever been overthrown by terrorism. That is not what they are after. What they aim to do is intimidate us into closing down our open society. They want to provoke us into setting aside the libertarian principles that form the basis of our parliamentary and judicial systems. They want to be able to portray us as hypocrites who preach one thing and practice another. They want to be able to say that, when the going gets tough, we are just as reckless with human rights as they are.
	Those people also want us, by our response to terrorist outrages, to take actions that alienate sections of our own law-abiding population and attract sympathy for their cause by getting us to lock up innocent people. So, how we respond to the threat of terrorism needs to be considered very carefully. We want to thwart the murderous intentions of the bombers and assassins. We also need to thwart their propaganda. That is why I believe the Government's proposal is likely to prove counter-productive in practice, as well as wrong in principle.
	The Government say that they want these powers in case the police and security services are overwhelmed by demands on their time, but the law already provides for that through the Civil Contingencies Act, which specifically lists terrorism as one of the types of emergency that it covers. The procedure laid down in that Act, which was passed by the House as recently as 2004, could be triggered in such a crisis, and Parliament could have a sensible debate about whether it would be appropriate to respond by resorting to the emergency provisions. That would not require the declaration of a state of emergency, and the use of such emergency powers could be subject to challenge in the courts. None of that applies to what the Government propose.
	I hope that the Government will not proceed with their proposal to extend detention without charge beyond 28 days. Surely it would be better to develop a consensus in the face of the terrorist threat and to develop policies that were likely to thwart terrorist outrages while denying any propaganda advantage to the terrorists. I say that as Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, which is where two of the four 7 July outrages took place, and which was also the location of one of the attempted outrages on 21 July, so I yield to no one in my opposition to terrorism and my loathing of terrorists. However, I also want to protect our ancient liberties, because they are at the heart of our open democracy and because, by sticking to our civil liberties, we give the lie to the terrorists' claims that we are no better than they are.

Paul Goodman: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was not in any sense going to comment on the trial. I was simply going to make the point that two of my constituents were held under Overt and not charged. I know that one of those men was held for 28 days.
	Of course, I am not a Minister. Those of us who are not and have never been Ministers should be mindful of the responsibility that they carry and of the fact that Ministers often have access to information that the rest of us do not have. Given that, it would be irresponsible to oppose in principle an extension to 42 days. However, the harm that such an extension would undoubtedly do to winning Muslim hearts and minds, and to civil liberties more broadly, must be justified in practice by any good that it might do by preventing and deterring terror attacks.
	A central difficulty for the Government—the Home Secretary could not avoid this today—is that by Ministers' own admissions it has not been necessary in any case to date to hold any suspect for longer than 28 days to charge them. If Ministers had broad and deep support for their claim that an extension to 42 days—apparently, that is a completely arbitrary figure in itself—was necessary, we would have to weigh it carefully. However, as we have heard, the broad and deep support is for not going beyond the status quo. We read today that that support is shared in private by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General.
	The complex manoeuvres in the Bill to give the Commons a say in the holding of suspects beyond 28 days is a move by Ministers to break up that broad and deep support and to shore up their position with their Back Benchers. If that is the case, the first part of the manoeuvre has clearly failed. We wait to see whether Ministers have more success with the second.
	I have at least one constituent who was charged within the 28-day limit—that suggests that the current limit is sufficient—and I must not forget that one of my constituents was held for that period and not charged. Whatever a man's character or history, it is no small matter for him to be held without charge for the best part of a month. That can have no small effect on his family, and perhaps on his employment and health.
	The Government's case is not helped by the persistent suggestion that Ministers are no more concerned with security than they are with spin. As recently as this morning, a Government spin doctor—I am using a newspaper's phrase, not mine—was quoted thus:
	"We may have a parliamentary challenge on our hands...but in the end the public will see that"
	the Leader of the Opposition
	"has out-sourced counter-terrorism to...Liberty".
	It would be risible if Ministers who recently failed to prevent a convicted terrorist from leaving prison early and to ban Ibrahim Moussawi from entering Britain were to try to portray others as soft on extremism and terror, but that might well be the game. If so, the House can conclude only that Ministers are prepared to risk the position of Britain's mainstream Islamic leadership in the quest for a quick political win as the grim opinion polls stack up for the Prime Minister. Whatever the motive, the House must ask itself whether that risk is worth taking.
	Al-Qaeda is seeking to lure young, vulnerable Muslims away from their traditional religious faith. It is trying to drive a wedge between them and their families, and to open up a chasm between them and the prospect of a happier, better and more fulfilled life that is no less authentically Islamic for being completely British. It is trying to set Muslims against non-Muslims. Those of us in the House who are not Muslims have perhaps a particular responsibility not to make that strategy easier to accomplish.
	I have tried to warn consistently in the House of the dangers of separatism and extremism. That has not invariably been a popular course to follow in all quarters of my constituency. If it were proved to me that it was necessary to extend from 28 days to 42, I would vote to do so, but the House should not be willing to compromise good relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, increase the heavy burden that Britain's mainstream Muslim leadership bears, make more difficult the flow of information to the police and contradict key elements in the Government's Contest anti-terror policy for no tangible security gain in perhaps the greatest struggle of our time, in which all Muslims and non-Muslims should be, and yet can be, united.

Dari Taylor: I will concentrate my comments on reserve powers, the need to extend pre-charge detention and the use of intercept as evidence.
	I place on the record my cautious and probably critical views on using intercept as evidence. I am clear the Bill is an attempt to say that if we used intercept evidence, we could convict people more easily; I understand the intention. However, the fact is that the technology that is used is fast-changing, and it will ultimately prevent effective tracing. That should be acknowledged. My second problem with using intercept as evidence is that the tracing and publicising of intercept evidence, even if it is used only by an advocate, could result in security agents being identified, which puts them and their families at risk. Both those factors should be considered, and I hope that they will be when the Bill is in Committee.
	The Bill clearly outlines the many and varied challenges that we face. It attempts to put in place a legal and democratic process that will, in an emergency, support the security services, giving them adequate time to detect, detain and charge so that they can prevent further successful acts of terrorism. The process outlined in the Bill carefully attempts to do that, but it also protects individual liberties. The Bill acknowledges that the security agencies and police who work in the realm of coping with and reducing terrorism face enormous difficulties in gathering evidence effectively. The process is often slow and difficult, and it is regularly dangerous.
	The Bill makes overwhelmingly clear the scale of the activity that we have to get our heads around. Potential terrorist activity is on a growth curve that is frightening for all. I believe that it was the previous director general of MI5 who said that there are today more than 2,000—perhaps as many as 4,000—potential terrorists who are being watched and about whom intelligence is being gathered. Many of them—perhaps all of them—have multiple identities. We have a serious problem, the scale of which we are beginning to understand. Add to that the fact that those people use thousands of CDs, mobile phones and computers. It is on record that it took special branch 60 days to put together one particular video, but when it did, it found the evidence that it was looking for: it was a video to encourage, persuade and ratchet up terrorism. These are difficult times. Gaining factual, evidential intelligence is problematic, and that more than anything else makes me sympathetic to supporting reserve powers to extend the period of detention without charge—with one, absolute caveat: that the powers be used in exceptional cases only.
	I am reasonably satisfied with the process through which an extension to pre-charge detention may be granted, and I will later outline why. I am keen to hear the Government say who initiated the debate. We have heard that it was, in part, the Association of Chief Police Officers. I would like to know what evidence has been produced by the security agencies and special branch to persuade us that an extension of pre-charge detention limits is essential. I believe that that information should be placed in the Library.

Dari Taylor: The Bill states that if Parliament does not support the reason for the enactment of legislation permitting the use of reserve powers, the person or persons in custody will be released immediately. It also states that there will be an independent review and report on why the process was undertaken and whether it was appropriate to the application. All that persuades us that the process is clear and factual.

Ben Wallace: When the Bill was introduced, the Home Secretary said that it was partly the result of lessons learned from previous legislation, such as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, so that those working at the coal face who every day face the threat that we talk about from our comfort zones would be able to put things right. The hope was that it would bring the lessons learned from the past into the present day, but I see no evidence of that in the Bill. Rather it seems to have come off the top of the head of some special adviser or focus group in response to public opinion. The Government have not learned the lesson from the last debate about detention without trial and have decided to reintroduce the measure, despite all the inevitable consequences.
	The Bill's justification is that terrorism is different, that it has severe consequences, and that often the resulting trials are very complicated. But organised crime has severe consequences, too; evidence trails from drug running or any other type of organised crime are incredibly complicated; and the perpetrators of such crime take advantage of technology like anybody else. Paedophiles make exactly the same efforts to cover their tracks. The Government are not introducing proposals today to include those types of crime. Try telling the victims of paedophiles and organised crime that they are not as important as the victims of terrorists. In fact, there are more victims of organised crime and paedophiles than there are of terrorists.
	Another justification is that today's terrorists are different from the previous lot, but that is not the case. Terrorism is always countered in the same way. A number of my Conservative colleagues have personal experience of facing down and combating terrorism. I myself have had many experiences in Northern Ireland and here in countering terrorism when some Government Members were doing their best to prevent us from doing that job. Good counter-terrorism is intelligence-led; it needs community support and informers. Failure means that we all face serious consequences, but failures there are. There is no such thing as a 100 per cent. successful counter-terrorism policy, because counter-terrorism is a premeditated activity, often relying on the coverage given by communities.
	I am sure that the Home Secretary did not mean to mislead the House, but one cannot simply compare a straightforward IRA case with a complex al-Qaeda case. Many IRA plots were incredibly sophisticated, extending to countries such as Libya, France and America, involving many people and using technology to avoid detection, and often—much more regularly than the present-day terrorists—they hit their targets, causing 3,000 deaths. The IRA came into this House and blew up one of its Members and bombed the Cabinet. As the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway) said, the IRA used real bombs that worked every time. We should not pretend that because today's terrorists are different, we should compromise more of our liberties. They are the same. They may have more ambitions, but most IRA bombs in the centre of London went off; they were not towed to the car pound by an overzealous car-parking attendant. The IRA were more and more successful, and we should not forget that.
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) is right. He and I would never have seen eye to eye in Northern Ireland. Members of his communities may have been the victims of some of my activities. We would have debated what level of security was right for living with the threat, although we may not have agreed. I am sure that, in my time, we did things that may not have been received sympathetically, but we ensured that we undertook other counter-terrorist activities. Counter-terrorism is not just about convicting; it is often about disrupting terrorist organisations or operations. One day, one is sure there will be a conviction, but one needs the political courage to recognise that one cannot always get it right. One has to admit that sometimes mistakes are made in counter-terrorism.
	Counter-terrorism is about a balance between extremes. We could do nothing or we could do everything. We could have internment and Guantanamo Bay. We could even put the pressures on police forces that may have led to the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four convictions. Getting the balance right so that we protect our liberties while ensuring that we catch the criminals is the important part of the debate. It is an act of political cowardice to go quickly to the extreme. One Labour Member said that one should wear a hard hat in case part of a building falls on one's head; I can understand that if one is working on a building site, but out in a field one would look ridiculous wearing a hard hat as some form of risk coverage. We must strike the right balance.
	The Bill is a missed opportunity. Not one of the 20 recommendations in the report to Ministers from ACPO on RIPA about how to make our surveillance more efficient has been included in the Bill. Instead, there has been an attempt on spurious grounds to lock people up without trial for 42 days—an arbitrary figure if ever there was one.
	The Home Secretary likes to say that technology allows terrorists to co-ordinate and hide their activities, but we have huge amounts of technology on our side. We have GCHQ at Cheltenham and the police, and often such technology means that we do not need 42 days, or even one hour, but the Home Secretary will not tell us about the weapons that we have at our disposal—perhaps rightly, for the sake of security. She would rather let it be thought that the advantage is one-sided—that only the terrorists can use technology. The challenge in modern crime-fighting is to stay one step ahead, but that must not be at the expense of our civil liberties. When we do that, we fail not only the victims, but the whole of society. The challenge to the Government is to have the political courage to say to victims of terrorist incidents, that, unfortunately, sometimes we cannot do it all, but we act in the best interests of the whole nation and to defend all our liberties.

Patrick Mercer: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). I am delighted to hear that he has changed his view from supporting the 90-day limit, which we discussed some time ago, to supporting a limit that in my view is still far too overblown.
	I want to discuss two things—consensus and history. I was extremely pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) discuss the al-Karam school in my constituency, which has achieved such notable results not only in terms of a reasoned and thinking approach to the problems that we have discussed today, but in terms of academic results. I have listened to those Sufi gentlemen at length, and I hope that I have absorbed a great deal of what they have to say.
	On consensus, the threat that we are discussing today will certainly become a reality. Every day that passes, I think that the clock is running down before we experience a serious, concerted and lethal attack against this country. When that happens, I hope that Labour Members will not engage in cheap political point scoring about the views expressed by Conservative Members and some other Labour Members. It concerns me that there is a huge amount of cynicism over a subject that should be well above party politics.
	I want to pick up the points that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has made so eloquently. I think that I am the only Member in the Chamber at the moment who has experienced internment—at least, it was internment from my side of the equation. I know that the hon. Member for Foyle has clear views on internment, but I want to use it as a yardstick of history to talk to the Government, without in any way trying to patronise them, about the problems that I saw as a young officer through 11 tours in Northern Ireland in the '70s, '80s and '90s.
	I joined my battalion in 1975. Internment had come and gone, but I and many others had to try to pick up the pieces of that deeply flawed policy, which aided and abetted terrorism. Personally, I think that if we had not gone into that particular cul de sac, we would certainly have brought the IRA to its knees—perhaps temporarily—by about 1980. We had another two decades of trouble. Many of my friends were killed and injured in Northern Ireland, and I salute their memories. I very much hope that the Government look at the lessons of history and do not make the same mistakes and errors that were perpetrated all those years ago in Ulster.
	To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway), I should say that I fully acknowledge that this terrorism is not of the same nature. The IRA was visible and it killed and injured almost daily, despite the fact that big mouths such as me reckoned that we had them taped—of course we had not. The fact remains that in summer 2006, our enemies intended to bring down up to nine aircraft and kill in the region of 3,000 passengers and as many people as possible on the ground when the aircraft crashed. On top of that, our enemies intended to fracture both the international relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom and a coalition that—rightly or wrongly—was pursuing war on two fronts and carrying out the so-called "war on terror", which is not a phrase that I like to use.
	Those grand strategic aims put the IRA's campaign into a completely different light. Yes, the IRA killed, yes it was visible—but it killed dozens rather than hundreds or thousands. It is against that latter eventuality that we have to prepare ourselves. In my view, 14 days is quite enough. I operated in Ulster with seven days, and we made that work. However, we are where we are; to me, 28 days is more than we need, and that is underlined by the fact that nobody—with one possible exception—has had to be detained for that length of time.
	My next point is that, as Lord Dear said, our enemies will use the issue as a propaganda coup if we take it any further. Our enemies are not amateurs; they are not just ignorant gunmen or bombers. They do not wish to throw away their lives unnecessarily. They fully understand that they hurt us not just with bombs and bullets; a liberal democratic society is probably hurt more by propaganda. If we hand them this tool, they will use it mercilessly. First and foremost, they will use it in exactly the same way as the IRA did—to suggest that this is a racist or anti-religious Act directed purely and simply at the Muslim community. In the same way, the IRA suggested that internment was directed purely at Roman Catholics. That was not true, but it was enough that the IRA managed to persuade the international media that it was.
	On the "Today" programme this week, that precise point has been made—that if the Act goes through, it is likely to conflict with race relations legislation. Whatever the truth and reality and no matter how lawyers argue, the Act will be perceived as anti-Muslim. It will act as the most perfect recruiter. I do not wish to labour the point, but remember those who were improperly detained in Northern Ireland under internment. They were completely innocent. They may have been republicans, but they were innocent of violent acts. When they returned to their communities, they became magnets—the most powerful advocates of the twisted version of the republican cause. I believe that we have already seen something similar in the operations at Forest Gate and the like, as a result of which recruitment for jihadists who would wish us ill has leapt ahead.

Patrick Mercer: I take the hon. Gentleman's point entirely, but I would say this: we have gone far enough. We have legislation that takes us to 28 days; to my mind, we are lucky to have got away with that as much as we have. If we go any further, I suggest that we will hand a perfect victory to our enemies.
	My last point has already been made. The one effect that we noticed when internment finished was that intelligence sources across the political divide dried up. The "carefully nurtured" touts, to use an Ulster phrase, whom we had turned, deployed and made to flourish—whom we were paying, frankly—suddenly ceased to provide the crucial golden flow of intelligence and information.
	Having talked to members of the Security Service and highly-placed police officers, I believe that the same phenomenon has been noticed already. The only way in which we will win this battle is through a concerted, orchestrated and thoughtful approach to, and use of, intelligence. If we get that wrong, we might as well give up—we can deploy as many gunmen, riflemen, policemen, soldiers or cameras as we like, but unless we have human intelligence sources, we will take casualties. We will. We must not allow that to happen.
	In my last few seconds, I say this to the Government. The Minister, I know, is an extremely reasonable and sensible man. Please do not make the mistake again. We got it horribly wrong. Many people perished on both sides of the divide—security forces, terrorists and non-sympathetic civilians in Northern Ireland. Let us not get it wrong again. Let us understand that our liberties and freedoms are more important than anything else. Above and beyond anything else, the Government should study history and not pass the most powerful possible stick to our enemies.

Alistair Carmichael: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I remember his speech in the debate last time round, when we were discussing 90 days' detention, and I was struck by the similarity of many of the points that he has made tonight. I think that that is because what we have in the Bill is not so much a strategy as a rather loose and disparate collection of tactics. That lack of overall strategy is the cause of the Government's problems, and it is why these days we seem to have almost a Bill a Session on this subject.
	I feel very uneasy about several of the ways in which the Bill seeks to blur very important divisions within our constitution, especially in relation to the position of Scots law and the way in which that produces some exceptionally convoluted procedures. The position of Scots law has been subject to a particular lack of regard in the preparation of the Bill. That causes me great concern, and given the limited time, I want to concentrate most of my comments on that.
	The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) made a good and well-reasoned speech in which, as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, he listed a whole range of people whose views have been sought. When I asked whether he had sought the views of the Scottish Law Officers—the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor- General—he said no, because the Scottish Parliament has its own Committees. It does indeed, but they will not consider the Bill because it is of UK-wide application, and is to be debated and voted on in this House alone. It will ultimately then be applied, one would hope, by the Scottish Law Officers. I would say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that if the views of the Director of Public Prosecutions are worthy of consideration, surely the views of the Solicitor-General and the Lord Advocate, as head of the prosecution service in Scotland, must also be worthy of consideration. That is a point that not only the Home Affairs Committee but the Government should take on board—and one of which all Scottish Members should be particularly mindful.
	The House may recall that when we discussed 90 days' detention, it was a matter of some controversy that the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Executive had not been consulted at all. I was eventually able to intervene on the Home Secretary today to ask her whether the Lord Advocate was in favour of an extension to 42 days. It is remarkable that she did not answer the question. I was mildly concerned that the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing was sitting there mouthing and nodding his head as the Home Secretary was speaking, saying, "Yes, she is," suggesting that the Lord Advocate did support the proposal. I hope that when he responds to the debate he is able to make clear what representations the Home Office has received from the Lord Advocate, because there is nothing on the record so far, and that is a matter of significant concern for Scottish Members.
	One of the most worrying aspects of the convoluted way in which the Government have sought to introduce 42-day pre-charge detention is the blurring of the roles of this place, as a legislature, and the judiciary, as supervisor of the individual liberties of the citizen. I consider myself to be exceptionally ill-equipped, as an elected politician, to play the role that the Government seek to give, particularly if we were in the highly febrile atmosphere following a terrorist outrage. People who hope to be due for re-election in two years' time are not the best people trust with the liberty of the individual.

Alistair Carmichael: I would love to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I have already taken a couple of interventions, and it would be unfair to others who are seeking to speak.
	The questions that the Government have to ask are manifold. Under which rules of procedure will admissibility of evidence be judged? Will it be judged under the rules of the jurisdiction through which it is obtained or those of the jurisdiction in which the trial will take place? The Bill is absolutely silent on that. I have no doubt that co-operation between Scotland and the rest of the UK could be improved, but it is not necessary to drive a coach and horses through the constitutional settlement and the position of Scots law in Scotland in order to do so. I hope that that point will be considered carefully when the Bill goes into Committee.

Diane Abbott: Like most Londoners, I can remember exactly where I was when I heard about the 7/7 bombings, and, like thousands of Londoners, even though I did not have a friend or relative caught up in the bombings, I had friends and relatives on their way to school, college or work who, had their journey been 10 minutes earlier or later, would have been caught up in them. Those of us on mainland Britain who lived through the IRA terrorist bombing campaigns of the 1980s and 1990s, and now through 7/7, do not want to be told by Ministers that if we query some of the provisions of the Bill, it is because we take terrorism lightly.
	The other thing that I remember about 7/7, apart from the fear and concern I had about people close to me in the 40 minutes it took to understand where the bombings were and who had been hurt, was the calm, courage and resolution of ordinary Londoners in the days following. This arbitrary proposal to push pre-charge detention beyond 28 days does not do justice to the calm, courage and resolution of ordinary people.
	The problem with the Government's proposal, as speaker after speaker has set out, is that there is no solid public policy reason for it. I have followed the debate closely. I confess to the House that I have in my time worked for Liberty, which has become a bête noire of Ministers, but I share that honour in common with Cabinet Ministers and others. I have followed the debate with great interest, therefore, and I believe that the reason behind the resurrection of this proposal, it having been blocked in this House not so long ago, is political positioning. It relates to focus groups, polls and putting the Opposition in the wrong position on terrorism. It is a matter of manoeuvring and positioning—there is no solid public policy basis for it at all.
	When pressed, the Home Secretary talks about needing the Bill just in case. I have heard of just-in-time deliveries, but never of just-in-case legislation. The Home Secretary puts herself in the position of a prudent, west midlands housewife who keeps tins of salmon in her larder just in case someone should drop by. She has to have ludicrously draconian legislation, just in case something should happen. I put it to those on the Treasury Bench that we should not drive a coach and horses through civil liberties just in case. That is no basis for introducing proposals that this House emphatically rejected not so long ago.
	It is clear that there is no solid public policy reason for the proposal because of the way in which the figure has bounced around randomly, like balls on a billiard table—90 days, 56 days and now 42 days. I began to feel as if someone would put their hand into a hat and come out with a figure. The random nature of the figure gives the lie to the fact that there is a considered public policy basis for the proposals. We have heard every law officer, past and present, who has spoken out publicly on the legislation reject the need for it. We have heard that the encryption argument—that we need all this time to deal with encryption on computers—is nonsense. A law exists to deal with people who refuse to allow that process to go forward.
	Ministers are not talking about what I and others would like to hear them talk about, which is the effect of the proposal on our communities, particularly the Muslim community and the wider Asian community. The best speech in the debate was the one by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who described so vividly the effect of draconian, ill-thought-out, anti-terror legislation on the law-abiding Catholic communities in Ireland and in mainstream Britain at the height of the troubles.
	I believe that we will experience a parallel problem here with our Muslim and wider Asian community. It is no accident that the Government's Equality and Human Rights Commission is threatening to take them to court if the provision is accepted. Everyone knows that it will have a disproportionate effect on the Muslim and wider Asian community. Ministers cannot claim that imposing such draconian internment on that community can aid community cohesion and the flow of solid intelligence. As was said earlier, it is not a human rights, but a security argument.
	Like other hon. Members, I was a Member of Parliament in the 1990s when we voted on the prevention of terrorism Acts, and the notion that a short debate, late at night, with a whipped vote and all the media pressure to vote one way constitutes acceptable parliamentary scrutiny—not to mention the idea of our becoming some sort of grand jury—is laughable. I am embarrassed that some hon. Friends think that that is a sustainable argument. I will not vote against Second Reading, but unless something is done about the proposal to push pre-charge detention beyond 28 days, I and many others will vote against that specific provision on Report.
	We are not considering, as some hon. Members have suggested, a choice between protecting lives and protecting human rights. To protect lives, we must block the ill-conceived, unnecessary proposal to push pre-charge detention beyond 28 days. That is the way to make ourselves secure, protect lives and fight terrorism most effectively.

Pete Wishart: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), with her long years of experience on such matters.
	I start by echoing the Home Secretary's opening remarks. I agree absolutely that the House and the Government are responsible for ensuring the maximum protection of our citizens against international terrorism.
	We have been targeted in Scotland. We have felt the icy touch on our shoulders of those who would destroy our way of life and maim and kill indiscriminately for their warped and perverted agenda. We will not, therefore, take lectures from anybody about protecting and ensuring the safety and security of our citizens.
	Scotland was targeted. Scotland was violated the day that burning jeep crashed into the airport terminal in Glasgow, and I suppose that our attitude to terrorism has changed for ever and a day because of that. Some people believed that Scotland would not be targeted because we had not fully bought into the worst aspects of the Government's belligerent and aggressive foreign policy. Some of us believed that we might have been spared, but 30 June last year changed everything.
	I know the seriousness with which my colleagues in the Scottish Government take such issues. Their first priority is ensuring the safety of Scottish citizens. However, they also have obligations and responsibilities for ensuring Scottish civil liberties. They are responsible for making sure that nothing compromises or threatens the good community relations that we have in Scotland. We will therefore not allow any half-cocked proposals or half-baked suggestions such as the extension to 42 days to threaten that. We have seen no evidence that anything beyond 28 days is required. We agree with all the campaign groups, Opposition parties and the new voices that contribute to the overwhelming chorus that says that nothing beyond 28 days is required.
	To legislate on the basis of hypothesis is the most ridiculous way of running the country. If we follow that route, where will it end? There is an undignified tangle between Labour Front Benchers and Back Benchers to stave off some sort of rebellion. Half-measures were proposed to try to buy off a Back-Bench revolt. I suggest to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) that he has not done enough to achieve that.
	To revert to Scotland, one of the reasons that are sometimes cited for an extension beyond 28 days is the case of Kafeel Ahmed, one of the Glasgow bombers. It is contended that his case proves that more than 28 days is required. However, after ramming that jeep into Glasgow airport, Kafeel Ahmed fell into a coma and died in hospital. He was filmed driving a blazing jeep into the terminal building. What more evidence is required to bring a charge? The claim that that proves the case for an extension beyond 28 days is absurd. If that is the best the Government can do, it is not good enough.
	Let me consider Scotland and clause 27, about which I have great concerns. The provision was introduced late and at about the time we heard about the transfer of powers from Holyrood to Westminster. When pressed, from the Prime Minister down, the only powers that the Government could come up with were those on terrorism, which are almost 99 per cent. reserved in any case. We have only the right to try terrorist suspects in Scotland under Scots law. That made me wonder whether clause 27 is part of the agenda to transfer powers from Holyrood to Westminster and the commission that the Secretary of State for Scotland has proposed.
	We accept that, of course, co-operation is needed across jurisdictions and all law enforcement agencies and courts should work together to try to secure that. However, we need to establish the priority of the Lord Advocate's role.
	I want to see a clause in the Bill that makes it clear that any transfer of terror suspects out of Scotland's jurisdiction to the jurisdiction south of the border has to be made with the full consent of the Lord Advocate and that the Lord Advocate has the right to say no. We transferred the terror suspects last year because the case was made that they would be better prosecuted with the involvement of the Metropolitan police in the London courts. However, there will be times when that will not be necessary or appropriate, and when such suspects should be tried in Scotland. I want to see that in the Bill.
	The other issue for Scots law is post-charge questioning. We remain relatively happy with what has been suggested in general, but what has been suggested for post-charge questioning flies in the face of a principle of Scots common law that ensures that once a person is charged he or she comes under the protection of the court and that it is the court's duty to see that nothing is done to prejudice his or her trial. Quite simply, in Scotland, any answers provided after charge are not admissible. The clause on post-charge questioning runs a coach and horses through that principle in Scots law, so I seek reassurances that members of the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate have been fully consulted on that issue, too.
	Of course we believe that new powers are required to tackle terrorism. We will not oppose the Bill tonight, either, although we will return to it in future. We also believe that long-established human rights and community relationships should not—

Frank Cook: A large chunk of my education was received at the hands of the Jesuits. They always taught us that open confession is good for the soul and that we should tell the truth and shame the devil; so I have to tell the House that the last time we debated these issues, way back in 2005, I did not speak in the debates, nor did I vote. I was giving the then Home Secretary a very hard time over police reorganisation and I felt rather sorry for him, so I was rather reticent about pushing on the business of 90 days.
	In any case, I could not see why there was such trouble then. There was a judicial review every seven days, which I thought was a pretty good safeguard, so I wondered what on earth my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was getting all het up about. "He's almost demented, shouting for his 28 days," I thought. But he stuck by his guns and got 28 days, and he deserves every credit for that. The reason I did not speak or vote at the time was that I had accepted the responsibility of chairing the Committee stage of the Bill. Indeed, I moderated portions of the debate on it in the Chamber, too.
	When I saw this Bill's proposals for 42 days, I thought, "Well, there's some easement or relenting here." I was summoned to a meeting with the Home Secretary and went along wondering what it was all about. I was surprised to find that she was anxious to discuss, on a one-to-one basis, the 42-day element. As she was questioning me, I thumbed through the card index of my brain box and remembered that 90 days had been no great problem for me. I said, "There's no problem"—I used her first name—"you can be assured of my vote on that." She was reassured and that was that.
	But some time later I had another one-to-one discussion, with Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty. She simply asked me, "Have you ever put yourself in the position of the person being detained?" That stopped me dead in my tracks. I thought, "Well, okay, what would it be like? Forty-two days—God, that's six weeks." I would be in custody, without charge, under suspicion—suspicion of what?—for one week, and then another and another, at the end of which someone would come to me and say, "All right, Mr. Cook, we believe that you're innocent—off you go." What would I feel like?
	I immediately felt angry, but then I thought, "Just a minute—what if Frank Cook was a Muslim and that happened?" What would I do then? I would be likely to go back to South Shields, the south bank or Southampton and play merry hell, providing evidence of the residual reservoir of resentment that had built up over those 42 days of not knowing what they wanted to detain me for. It would not only eat like acid into the individual soul, but provide justification for others within the community to feel the same levels of resentment and seek a similar kind of retribution. They would feel justified in doing that. This is the second time that I have made this confession in a week, but I felt ashamed of my own failure to recognise all that, so I picked up the phone, rang the Home Secretary's private office and asked them to tell the Home Secretary that I had changed my mind. She was not very pleased!
	We have heard many good speeches today—a couple of mediocre ones, but most have been quite brilliant. The one that stands out in my mind as providing something that we should try to hang on to was the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). Why? He reminded me of the famous words of Nye Bevan, when he said:
	"Why look into the crystal ball, when you can read the book?"
	My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle opened the book for us tonight. We cannot go on ignoring history. Will we never learn? We have to open our eyes, open our ears and use the bit of grey matter that God, thank heavens, gave us and make sure that we do not make the same mistakes of the past.
	I will support the Bill as a whole this evening as it has some good elements—intercepts, DNA and other aspects—but on Report, when it comes to the provisions on pre-charge detention, I am afraid that I must warn the Government that they will not be able to count on my support. I shall oppose the provisions on that occasion.

Edward Garnier: I agree with what the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) said about part 6 of the Bill, and with what the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) said in his intervention. However, I want to deal with an earlier and a later part of the Bill.
	A great number of participants this evening have drawn attention to the speech made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), and they were right to do so. I also pay tribute to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman). The vast majority of the speeches have been contrary to the Government's position, and a feeling is emerging that terrorism will only be broken and deterred or inhibited with the co-operation of the minority to whom it is designed to appeal. To seek a battle over the number 42 as opposed to 90, as the Government appear to be doing, will not reassure the majority and will simply feed the sense of victimhood of the minority. In short, it is merely a branch of gesture politics.
	I say that in the context of a Bill that includes clause 59, which deals with the appointment of special advocates in matters to do with the seizing of the assets of those who have been convicted of terrorist offences. The clause provides for a relevant Law Officer to appoint a person to represent the interests of the party to the asset-freezing proceedings. I am staggered that in clause 59(2) the Government are pleased to announce that a person who is appointed as a special advocate is not responsible to the party to the proceedings whose interests this person is appointed to represent. If we are to consider the rights of the individual in that context, there is not much hope for any of us.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: In the past six months, we have heard a great deal about Britishness—indeed the former Attorney-General was put in charge of it, perhaps as a consolation, but more likely as a punishment for his term in office. In truth, that was wholly unnecessary. We do not need to be taught about Britishness, or about flags and ceremonies. Britishness has many great attributes at its root, but civil liberties are not one of them. Civil liberties are not an attribute of being British. They are the defining characteristic of our nation. They are what we are.
	That is not hyperbolic; I mention it simply because what comes from it is the enormously high burden and standard of proof required in this House if any Government attempt in any way to circumscribe or check those liberties. My first point, which has been made extraordinarily well already, is that there is no evidence whatever to vote for the Bill—none. Hopeful statements of desiderata are not evidence. Statements from senior police officers saying, "I would really like this," or, "I would really, really, really like this," or, "It would be very useful," or, "I need this," are not evidence. Evidence is what needs to be put before the House, and there is none, so the Bill must not be voted for.
	I wish to spend a couple of moments on a matter that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has just dealt with very well, so I can shorten what I was going to say. It is the entirely indigestible palliative that has been served up by the Government to attempt, as he said, to persuade the House to pass this measure. The House would be given an extraordinary power, but it is a power over the decision of the Executive that we simply cannot take. It is simply not available to us.
	One can imagine the process: the Attorney-General—or the DPP, or the relevant chief of police—will say to the Home Secretary, "Look, we've found a plot. In fact, we've found two plots, or three, so we want special powers. We want to extend the limit to 42 days." In response, the Home Secretary will say yes, and she will come to the House to get our approval for what is, of course, a judicial act.
	That is a complete misapprehension of the difference between parliamentary and judicial power. We can use parliamentary power to give judicial power, not to exercise it, but that is what we will be doing. Will we exercise it ad hominem? In other words, are we going to be given the names of the plotters and the details of what they have done and how they have done it, so that we can decide what we are going to do? Or will we be told, "We know things you do not know."? That is much more likely.
	Worse still, will we be told, "This group of plotters has weapons of mass destruction."? It would take an awful lot to get that through this House, and even more to get it past the people out there. What would happen if that were to be said and accepted by the House, only for us to discover—again—that it was a false and duplicitous claim? The result would be that this House would be found to have connived in locking up for 42 days people—almost certainly members of minority groups—who are innocent.
	We cannot take this power. There are checks and balances on courts and juries and rules of evidence that mean that we know how information comes before us. We cannot operate like that in this Chamber, because juries are not whipped. I know many judges who wish that they were whipped, but they most certainly are not.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: There was none, and I hope that my hon. Friend feels that he is making precisely the point that I am making. At the time of the miners' strike, a law was passed that received neither judicial review nor scrutiny. Therefore, although he and I may have appeared to be at odds, in fact my hon. Friend and I are almost certainly at one. I am grateful to him—not least for the fact that his intervention has clocked up an extra minute for me that enables me to say something about 90 days.
	What I want to say about 90 days has been said before, but it is worth reiterating in this House. If 42 days is the period of time required to do justice in the circumstances that are envisaged why, two years ago, were hon. Members on my side of the House whipped to approve a period double that which is now deemed to be necessary? That question has never been answered to my satisfaction, although the Government have adopted the rather coy approach of saying, "We have been listening, and we've learned."
	What, exactly, has been learned? What is the blazing, Damascene truth that has suddenly caused Ministers to say, "We got it wrong. We were going to lock people up for six weeks, which was completely unnecessary. We are very sorry."? The only person to my knowledge who has attempted to defend the Government's approach was Lord Falconer. He made a robust—indeed, rotund—contribution but, when one reads it, one sees that it was completely untenable.
	I simply place that before the House, for the House's delectation. We should not have trusted the argument two years ago, and there is absolutely no reason why we should do so now.

John Baron: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who has been consistent and right about the policy.
	This is one of the most foolish Bills to come before the House. In many of its proposals, it is certainly one of the weakest and most unjust, but my chief concern relates to the extension of the pre-charge period to 42 days. Let us be clear what we are talking about. The proposal goes to the heart of what it means to be free. Depriving a person of their liberty is a more fundamental infringement of their rights than perhaps any other, yet the Government have consistently failed to provide any evidence to suggest that the extension to 42 days, to deny someone their freedom, is actually needed.
	In a liberal democracy, certainly in peacetime, freedom should not be denied simply on the basis of suspicion. Evidence is absolutely essential. If we go down the road of detaining people purely on the basis of suspicion, we are a step closer to becoming a police state. Indeed, it appears to be a new principle of legislation that we pass laws today for an imagined scenario some time in the future. That is not the way to make law. Suspicion and hypothesis must take second place to evidence.
	Not only is the 42-day detention period not needed, but it would be wholly disproportionate to what other democratic countries, facing similar terror threats, are doing. International comparisons are revealing. In most western democracies the pre-charge detention period is less than eight days. What is so unique about the British that the Government believe that they need not just 28 days but 42 days? Perhaps the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing could look at it this way: will he list five or six countries where the pre-charge detention period is actually 42 days? What sort of countries are they? Are they democracies? What sort of dubious club are we about to join? I should be happy to give way to him, however briefly, if he could come up with some suggestions.
	In an intervention on the Home Secretary I mentioned the Madrid bombings. That example is relevant. Eventually, 29 suspects were charged. The case involved seven countries and 300 witnesses. There was a massive amount of evidence to go through yet all the charges were made within five days. Why do the Government believe that our investigations are so much less efficient and effective than those in other countries? They have not made that case.
	Furthermore, the policy could be not only ineffective but counter-productive. I shall not dwell on that point because several other Members, especially the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), made it aptly. I shall simply add a personal experience.
	Like many of my colleagues on the Conservative Benches, I served in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and I saw at first hand how counter-productive internment actually was. By that time we were at the end of it, but we had to pick up the pieces. Internment made the job of the terrorists easier—they could simply go into local communities and recruit extremists. There was little doubt in our mind that one of the major reasons was the injustice of internment. We must not make that mistake again in this country. If we do, we shall be storing up a problem for ourselves that will last many decades, and many innocent people will pay the price.
	In the minute or so that remains for my speech, I can say only that it is no wonder that commentators are queuing up to condemn the Bill. We have heard about the Director of Public Prosecutions, the former Attorney-General, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Home Affairs Committee and many others. They are not ignorant bystanders; they are experts in their field who should be respected.
	Finally, the Home Secretary made great play of the parliamentary safeguards that exist with regard to this legislation, but they would be inadequate, inappropriate and illogical: inadequate because it does not allow for a vote by Parliament before the Home Secretary makes use of her powers; inappropriate because it is not the role of Parliament to assess individual cases; and illogical because, when triggered in response to an individual case, the extension of the pre-charge limit will apply to all suspects held, even if their cases do not justify such an extension. This is a bad Bill. One can only speculate about why it has been introduced at this time—perhaps in a vain attempt to outflank the Opposition and to prove that the new Prime Minister is tough on terrorism—but the case has not been made, and I hope that the House has the courage to defeat the Bill when the time comes.

Dominic Grieve: There will be opportunities to take evidence, but the Public Bill Committee will not be in a position to take evidence from the judiciary. It is for the House to make a judgment about whether we wish to depart from the ordinary procedures that govern inquests, especially the principle that if there are areas of controversy, a jury is generally empanelled. Given my hon. Friend's historical analysis of some of the fundamental freedoms that we enjoy in this country, I am sure that he would be the first to recognise and appreciate that safeguard. For that reason, when the Home Secretary suddenly decrees that the system is no longer valid and might have to be bypassed, some pretty coherent explanations ought to be put forward. We have heard none, and I for one remain extremely sceptical about the nature of the proposal.
	Inevitably, the debate has been dominated by the issues surrounding the Government's proposals for 42-day pre-charge detention. Many speeches were made on the subject, some of them by hon. Members with personal knowledge, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman). Speeches were also made on the subject by Members who have served in the armed forces, including my hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Patrick Mercer), for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) and for Billericay (Mr. Baron). In all cases, we asked the Government to focus on why it is thought that such short-term security advantage as might be derived from allowing the possibility of 42-day detention will not be massively outweighed by the extent to which the measure marks a binning of our own values in the face of terror—the very thing that we should not do when confronted with such a challenge.  [Interruption.] I will give way to the Home Secretary if she wishes to intervene on me.
	This is an early stage in the Bill's passage. We certainly do not intend to divide the House on it, and I know that others who are concerned about it do not intend to do so either, but may I say to the Home Secretary and the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing that if we are to achieve the consensus that the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and many others keep insisting is their aim, the time has come for them to focus on the massive opposition to the proposal that is to be found in all parts of the House? That opposition was reflected in every contribution made, including those by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who expressed his disquiet about the matter, by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson), by the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and by many others. Each of them highlighted the fact that it is seen as a counterproductive measure that undermines civil liberties and will deliver nothing.
	If the Government want consensus, they will have the opportunity in Committee to do what I am surprised that they did not do three or four months ago, and announce that whatever their views on the matter, the will of the House is transparently clear, and they will abandon the project.

Dominic Grieve: I hope to avoid dancing on the head of a pin. If it were to be suggested that in a state of emergency some new powers should be put together that would have the effect of providing for an extension in a way different from the rather blunter instrument of the Civil Contingencies Act, that has long been an area that could properly be considered. But when one looks at what the clause and the schedule associated with it say, it is obvious that that is not what the Government have in mind at all. The Government's proposals are for measures to be taken on the discretion of the Secretary of State, without there being any state of emergency of any kind whatsoever.
	One particularly important issue, which was raised in today's debate by the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), concerned a clause that appears on the face of it to undermine the independence of Scotland's legal system as provided for by the Act of Union. In fairness to the Government, there may be some sensible reasons for clause 27, but the Government's attitude to issues such as 42 days' pre-charge detention is bound to colour everybody's attitude to their bona fides in their approach to everything else in the Bill. That is why it is so important that the Government should think again on the subject and provide to a much greater degree an atmosphere in which consensus can be achieved.  [Interruption.] Again, I cannot quite hear what the Home Secretary is mumbling about, but if she would like me to give way, I shall be only too happy to do so.

Rob Marris: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is an intellectual contradiction in the position put forward by his right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, in that on the one hand he wishes to cloak himself in defending our ancient liberties, but on the other hand he puts forward three alternative ways in which a Government could circumvent those protections—first, post-charge questioning, secondly the use of the Civil Contingencies Act, and, thirdly, banging people up after they have been charged when at the point of being charged there is a less than 50 per cent. chance of their being convicted? I understand those positions, but that is an intellectual contradiction. Either one supports those ancient liberties, which seems to be the centrality of the right hon. Gentleman's position, or one does not. One cannot have it both ways.

Tony McNulty: I do not think that I even got the full list of points down. I have not got anywhere near to replying, courteously, to all those who made points in the debate.
	I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) that whatever the circumstances of this legislation and whatever struggle we face now, the one struggle to which the issues are not comparable is Northern Ireland in the '70s. However, I take great care over this; I fully note what my hon. Friend said about that struggle's impact on the Irish community—because I am part of that. I was part of it then, and I am part of it now. I remember—I have said this to Muslim audiences as well—feeling ever so slightly troubled in 1974 when the Prevention of Terrorism Act came in. I remember my father going upstairs and checking my books to see which ones he should throw out just in case, because I was Irish and because of my interest in politics. I take my hon. Friend's point very seriously, but say profoundly in the next breath: this is not in any way comparable with the failed experiment of internment in the early '70s, when people by the thousand were rounded up, with no intelligence, no evidence, no suspicion—no nothing. Anyone who refers to any of this as internment is entirely off the mark.
	We start, as I think everybody here does, knowing and understanding the battle and struggle against terrorism. In relation to what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, I do not challenge or traduce anybody's motives as regards where they stand on the Bill or their genuine understanding of the threat that we face. If we disagree, let us disagree with some degree of honesty. I may be the only optimist left in this place, but I still think that, across the elements of the Bill, not least the ones that I have already identified—post-charge questioning and coroners and inquests—we can get to real deliberation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and others suggested, on the model that is before us in relation to the nature of the emergency, the trigger in terms of the DPP and the police, and when there should be parliamentary oversight.
	It is quite extraordinary how so many Members have been utterly dismissive of this place having any role in introducing a law—not getting involved in an individual case but introducing the commencement of a law, which I thought was the role of this place. It is not our role to deal with individuals and individual cases—that is a matter for the judiciary. When people talk about the weak and flaccid nature of this place in terms of oversight, they then have a go at the judiciary and judicial oversight, which is as strong as anything comparable anywhere in the world, and in most cases far more so.
	I think that on everything to do with pre-charge detention and moving from 28 to 42 days, everybody starts from the premise that the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) alluded to—that the norm for terrorist cases is, very strongly, 14 days, not 28 days, which is renewed yearly because of the circumstances that we face. Most, if not all senior policemen—I will have a word with the hon. and learned Gentleman afterwards about the one whom he traduced—and people in the security services are clear that they can foresee circumstances in which we will need this sort of reserve power and provision, not to be introduced overnight or on a whim in the face of where we start from in terms of British traditions, but in very specific and unique circumstances. That is why it is not internment. Fourteen days is the norm, 28 days is the exception, and going beyond 28 days is utterly exceptional.
	In response to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), the Lord Advocate and the Lord Advocate's office are fully aware of and have been fully alongside the development of and consultation on these matters. I have spoken at length to Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Minister, and we have had extensive correspondence about very serious matters such as jurisdiction. Those deliberations are ongoing. If that does not answer the hon. Gentleman's point, I will come back to him after the debate.

Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put the motions on prisons together.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees) ,

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Phil Willis: I have pleasure in presenting a petition signed by the mayor of Knaresborough and 3,140 local residents, who are dismayed and angered that their local sub-post office in Aspin lane, Knaresborough is faced with closure when it is well used by a wide section of the local community, and it provides vital services, especially to the elderly and less mobile. If it closes, only one sub-post office would serve the whole of Knaresborough and the surrounding district, which has a population in excess of 15,000 people. It is therefore vital that the Post Office sees reason and ensures that Knaresborough retains two sub-post offices.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents, employees in and visitors to the ancient town of Knaresborough and all those seriously concerned about the decision of the Post Office to review the future of Aspin Lane Sub Post Office, 61 Aspin Lane, Knaresborough HG5 8EX.
	Declares the importance of this sub Post Office to thousands of people living, working in and visiting Aspin district of Knaresborough, and the surrounding areas including the villages of Goldsborough and Flaxby, including the more elderly and disabled; recalls that should this Sub Post Office close there would be only one Sub Post Office serving the whole of Knaresborough and surrounding areas; and reminds Members of Parliament of the number of closures of local sub Post Offices in the Knaresborough area over recent years.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory reform to make clear to the Post Office the importance of this office continuing as a sub Post Office, the retention of a second sub Post Office to serve Knaresborough and the benefit of withdrawing as soon as possible any proposals which put at risk any of the existing services provided from this Post Office.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000164]

Post Office Closures (Teeside)

Mark Lancaster: Today marks the 100th anniversary of the formation of the Territorial Army—an organisation in which many hon. Members have been proud to serve over the years. It is therefore a fitting time and place to pay tribute, and give thanks for their dedication and service, to all those men and women who have served as members of the Territorial Army in the past 100 years.
	The modern Territorial Army was formed on 1 April 1908, thanks mainly to the efforts of the then Secretary of State for War, Richard Burton Haldane. He ultimately combined for the first time militia and volunteers—both reserve forces, but organisations with different characters and traditions. However, the origins of today's TA stretch back long before 1908 and there remains an essential continuity, which links today's Territorials with those of the past. As both a Member of Parliament and a member of the TA, I need look no further than the plaques in the Chamber to be reminded of the ultimate sacrifice that my predecessors made. However, what links generations of Territorials more than anything else is the concept of being volunteer—a role that is part hobby, part job, but crucially a mindset of public service and being prepared to serve Queen and country.
	We are celebrating the achievements of those men and women—those volunteers—today, but we must also learn the lessons of the past. Looking back at the challenges that faced Haldane in 1908 when the modern TA was formed, the parallels with today, when yet again we find our reserve forces subject to review, are striking. Today, it is easy to forget that, as an island nation, historically our biggest fear has always been invasion. Although there is still great debate about the origins of the first auxiliary forces, many point to the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, where all able-bodied freemen built fortifications, repaired bridges and undertook military service in the fyrd—the old English word for "army." The principle of freeman bearing arms in defence of the community was enshrined in successive mediaeval statues, followed by the first so-called militia statutes in 1558.

Mark Lancaster: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course, I pay tribute to the Honourable Artillery Company, although I would debate with him whether it is the senior regiment. I shall deal with that shortly. Indeed, there is much debate in the TA about the oldest regiment.
	The militia was always an institution of state and implied a distinct element of compulsion for at least a section of society. Indeed, Professor Richard Holmes describes the militia as,
	"a draft finding body for the Regular army, its ranks filled by men without serious employment".
	With the creation of the new militia after 1757, militia service was, in effect, a tax on manpower, with each county raising a quota of men, found by compulsory ballot on the basis of its total male population. If balloted, a man would serve for three years on average and undertake several days' training each year. Apart from the ballot and lack of "volunteering", the similarities with today's TA are obvious. Indeed, while strictly volunteers, the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers (Militia), currently commanded by Lt Colonel Alistair Cooper, remains the senior unit in the modern Territorial Army.
	During times of war, the militia was used for permanent service, as happened during the American war of independence, and the Napoleonic and Crimean wars—a practice that continues today and is made somewhat easier following the Reserve Forces Act 1996. Let us consider, for example, 100 Field Squadron from the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers (Militia), which mobilised during the second Gulf war, or, indeed, the three formed units currently on active service in Afghanistan and Iraq. That history of "mobilising" formed units of men in times of national crisis has formed much of the reserve force ethos—the concept of training and fighting together that runs deep through any regular or TA soldier's psyche.

Mark Lancaster: My hon. Friend make a valuable point, which is also why so many in the TA are concerned about the increasing trend towards the mobilisation of individuals to fill gaps in Regular units. Although there is a general acceptance that individual replacements will always be required to support the Regular Army, equally, there is unease at the prospect of an end to the mobilisation of formed units, to which my hon. Friend rightly referred, leaving the TA as little more than a militia. I hope that the Minister will bear that point in mind when he ponders the results of the review, which are due later this year.
	True volunteer forces, as opposed to militia, first appeared in the 1650s. They continued to be raised at times of great emergency, being composed mainly of volunteer infantry and mounted volunteer units known as the yeomanry. Those forces attracted men with a stake in society, prepared to do their bit in a national emergency but less eager to imperil careers unless they were sure that such an emergency existed. It is perhaps those volunteers who have the strongest direct link to the ethos of the modern TA, not only in spirit, but in practice.
	Let us take E Company, 7th Battalion the Rifles, formerly the Rifle Volunteers, which is based in my constituency and that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who continues to hold a commission in the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry. I continue to feel that the TA is a broad church, containing both those who are happy to volunteer for the odd operational tour and those who are content to accept mobilisation when necessary, but feel that the Regular Army should be able to cope with its day-to-day demands without them. As Professor Holmes rightly says in his introduction to "Territorials", the book by Ian Beckett published today as part of the 100th anniversary celebrations:
	"If we fail to offer the young and the bold the chance of operational service they will lose interest and, at the same time, the TA cannot justify its cost if it does not make a practical contribution to an over stretched army".

Mark Lancaster: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. Speaking as someone who has been mobilised on three occasions, I firmly believe in the one Army concept. I am unsure about the details of my hon. Friend's point, but if that is indeed the case, it sounds as though it needs to be sorted out, as it is simply unacceptable. The relationship between the Regular Army and the Territorial Army has been a problem for many years. It goes back to the first world war, which I was about to come on to before she intervened.
	More than 100 years ago, despite limited opposition and with a few compromises, the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act was finally passed in 1907, but its real test was seen at the outbreak of the first world war. The initial establishment was to be 314,000, but that proved to be highly optimistic. The combined hostility of elements of the Regular Army and employers and unions alike meant that by 1914, at the outbreak of war, the Territorials had fallen a long way short of Haldane's original vision.
	Alas, as the years have passed, that appears to have been a common theme. Whenever a review of the TA has been carried out—be it as a result of the strategic defence review of the late 1990s, when the TA failed to get up to its establishment of 44,000, or, indeed, as recently as last year, when the National Audit Office reported that the TA was operating at some 16 per cent. below the new lower establishment of 36,000—the TA always ends up understrength. That is a lesson that we must learn; I hope that the current review will not fall into the same trap yet again by planning to cut TA numbers to a level that, as a result of over-weeding, we are destined to fail to achieve.

Mark Lancaster: Absolutely. As a former member of both Cambridge and Oxford officer training corps, I know how important a part it played in my training. Although the OTC plays a very important role, it would be wrong to suggest that many of these officers, being group B officers, can be deployed on operations.
	One area where lessons definitely have been learned from those early years is improved relations with employers. In recent times, the organisation, Supporting Britain's Reserves and Employers—otherwise known as SaBRE—has done much to engage employers and promote the benefits of employees belonging to the reserves and acquiring transferable skills such as leadership, self-confidence and initiative.
	Throughout the 100-year history of the modern Territorial Army, whenever they have been asked to do so, the men and women of the TA have stepped up to the mark. In August 1914, at the start of the great war, the British, having been distracted by the Irish Home Rule crisis, had the least time to react of any of the participants in that war. The assumption that no Territorial unit would proceed overseas until after six months' training was scrapped almost instantly. Despite the prejudices and distrust of the "amateur" soldiers by some, not least Kitchener himself, it was Territorials who were deployed to "fill the gap" on the western front, with the first unit to be sent to France, the 1/14th London Scottish, being dispatched on 16 September 1914.
	In numerical terms, the eventual contribution of the Territorial Force to the war effort was considerable, with 318 battalions and 23 infantry divisions serving overseas, and when voluntary enlistment ended in December 1915, some 725,842 men had enlisted in the Territorial Force since August 1914. During that war, 71 Victoria crosses were won by members of the Territorial Force, the first by Second Lieutenant Geoffrey Woolley on the night of 20 April 1915 on Hill 60 at Ypres.
	The willingness of Territorials to be mobilised at times of national emergency has been a feature throughout our history, and the response of the Territorials to the outbreak of the second world war was similar to that seen for the first, when, as war clouds loomed over Europe in the early months of 1939, the Government authorised the "duplication" of all Territorial Army units, thereby doubling the size of the TA.
	The TA today is very different even from the one I joined in 1990 at the end of the cold war years. Once again, mobilisation is the norm, with members of the TA being involved in all of the major recent conflicts—Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, the equivalent of 21 battalions have been mobilised to support operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in recent years. It is equally fair to say that the chaos that accompanied earlier mobilisations has been largely removed with the establishment of the reserves training and mobilisation centre—RTMC—at Nottingham, a dedicated facility designed for an annual throughput of some 3,600 soldiers, with some 200 at any time.
	There remains a concern, however, that the TA is being overused, and while keen to serve, many members—some now being mobilised for their second or third tour of duty—are hesitating at the prospect of being asked to sacrifice their primary career for their second. The TA is not a militia, but a volunteer force, but increasingly, month by month, it is being used as a militia and, ultimately, I fear that this will prove to be a major mistake. Basil Liddell Hart once described the TA as:
	"One of Britain's hardiest plants",
	but it would be rash to assume that the plant is as hardy as it once was. A Territorial "volunteers" every time he or she reports for duty and seeks challenge, backed by organisation, resources and commitment. Starve the TA of these and the plant will wither.
	The TA has a proud history of service to our country, and today of all days it is right that this House should celebrate its 100th anniversary, and the service of those brave "volunteers". They have given much over 100 years of service, and all they ask in return is that, for once, we learn the lessons of the past.

Derek Twigg: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) on securing this debate, and I thank him for giving me the opportunity to address the House on a day of great significance for the Territorial Army. I also offer my thanks to the hon. Gentleman for his long service as a member of the TA, which I know has included time served on operations. I also thank other Members present who have served in the armed forces or the TA for their service. I do not think there is a single current Member of this House who is not known as a strong supporter of the armed forces, and I am pleased there is such a good turnout in support of this important debate. My late father-in-law, Thomas Cassidy, was a sergeant-major in the TA, and I remember how important the TA was to his life and his family. Therefore, I am steeped in the TA tradition and in the importance that people who have served in it attach to it.
	I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the TA on its 100th anniversary. As he mentioned, the first TA units were formed 100 years ago to the day, following an Act of Parliament in the previous year. In reality, however, this was merely a continuation of a long tradition of part-time military service in Britain: from the militia, which dates back to the early 16th century and from which a number of present day TA units can trace their ancestry, to the London trained bands that fought with the parliamentarian Army in the civil war, and the Yeomanry formed during the Napoleonic wars to bolster home defence, which served with distinction during the Boer war.
	The reforms of the first years of the 20th century, led by the Liberal Secretary of State for War, J.B.S. Haldane, made a number of significant structural changes to the country's regular and reserve land forces. Among the most significant of them was the fusion of the Army's various non-regular forces into the Territorial Force, which we now know as the Territorial Army.
	It was not long before the wisdom of these reforms was confirmed. The Territorials went on to fight with distinction alongside their regular counterparts throughout the first world war, playing a vital part in holding the line against the German advance in the initial stages of that conflict, and at the end leading to the breach of the Hindenburg line in 1918.
	Since those early years, the Territorial Army, like the Army as a whole, has been in a continual state of evolution, adapting to reflect changes in the threats faced by this country, changes in technology, and changes in our own society. Through that process, it has continued throughout its first 100 years to play a fundamental part in the defence of the nation, notably during the second world war when it was mobilised and its units were absorbed into the Regular Army.
	In recent years, the Territorial Army has assumed an even greater importance. Under the "one Army" philosophy, regulars and Territorials serve on equivalent terms. They are trained, equipped and deployed in many of the same theatres, and they share the same risk. The Territorial Army is now the reserve of first choice, deploying in significant numbers wherever the Regular Amy is engaged; since 2003, some 15,000 Territorials have deployed on operations. We must not forget the sacrifice they have made. Sadly, since 2003 eight Territorials have died on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and since the end of world war two, 336 have been killed on duty. Our thoughts tonight must also be with their families as we mark this centenary.
	Arguably, the Territorial Army is now as crucial to overall military effectiveness as it has been at any point in its history. The sheer scope of roles it fulfils, which range from engineer, infantry, medic and logistician to driver and linguist, is evidence of just how vital its expertise is to today's Army. Indeed, earlier today, the Chief of the General Staff said:
	"It is difficult to imagine how the Regular Army could meet its present commitments without the combat capability and professional support provided by Territorial soldiers".
	It is partly against that background that the Secretary of State announced to the House two weeks ago his intention to set up a review to examine how our reserve forces, including the Territorial Army, should be most effectively configured, structured, equipped, located and trained for current and future defence needs. Although we are satisfied that our existing policy on the reserve forces is sound, we need to take stock of how they have been employed on current operations and consider their potential use in other roles related to projected requirements. We also need to consider issues such as the scope for greater integration into regular forces, and how we can better capitalise on the vast range of civilian skills that the reserve forces possess. There is widespread support among the services for the review, which will be conducted transparently and inclusively, and will involve consultation with a broad range of interested parties. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the review is not based on the drive for military economy; it is a strategic review to examine how the reserves' contribution to defence can be optimised to meet current and projected requirements.
	It is, therefore, clear that as the Territorial Army celebrates its first 100 years of service those associated with it have every right to look back with pride on past achievements and to look forward with confidence to a future that will continue to see the Territorial Army operating at the heart of this nation's armed forces.
	As the House is aware, a number of events are planned this year to mark this significant milestone, under the TA100 banner. The Defence Secretary and the Chief of the General Staff formally launched the season of celebrations this morning at the Tower of London. Synchronised regional events in the nation's capitals of Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast were incorporated in that. Looking ahead, there will be a reception at the National Army Museum on 3 April, to which a number of hon. Members have been invited, and a service of thanksgiving at St. Paul's cathedral on 15 May. The centrepiece of the commemorations will be a pageant on Horse Guards parade on 21 June, followed by the national reception in St. James's palace that same evening. There will also be a garden party at Buckingham palace on 10 July, and a parade and service at the armed forces memorial at the national memorial arboretum on 13 September. Those events will be supported by a range of regional and local celebrations continuing throughout the year until Remembrance day.
	Our aim is to maximise opportunities for the general public to become involved in those events, and to that end a website has been launched carrying further details on the Territorial Army and its centenary. We should not forget, of course, that this is also the centenary year of the reserve forces and cadet associations, which play a very important role promoting the volunteer reserve forces of all three services within the community. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all the reserve forces and cadet associations on this their landmark year.

Derek Twigg: If hon. Members do not mind, I am stuck for time. If I have some time at the end, I will give way, but I want to get a number of points on the record.
	We should not forget that Territorial soldiers are to many the face of the British Army. That is an important point. I always remember the visibility of the TA when I was a child, and because of my family connections. It is important to remember that to many the TA is the face of the British Army and of the other services, too, in a society that has become increasingly isolated from the hard realities of military service, despite the exposure that operations receive in our 24-hour news culture. Of course, we are looking again at how we can improve recognition. We have an important role to play in that. The Territorials' personal experience of service, when it is shared with workplace colleagues, family and friends, helps to bolster the understanding of the vital role played by the Army and the special ethos and culture that it possesses.
	It is also important in this year of commemoration to remember those without whose support the concept of part-time military service would be unworkable. I mean, of course, the partners and families without whose tolerance and understanding our Territorials could not play their full part in the Army. I pay tribute to those families.
	I want, too, to acknowledge the crucial supporting role played by employers. We have an ongoing debt of gratitude to the many enlightened employers—I am glad to say that most of them are—from small businesses, multinational companies and public sector organisations. They understand that the benefits of service in the Territorial Army cut both ways. People bring skills learned in the civilian workplace to bear in a military context, and the service provides high-value personal development for employees in areas such as leadership and motivation. We should never forget the benefits that serving in the armed forces bring to civilian life, too. I pay tribute to those employers.
	I want to conclude by paying tribute to the Territorials, past and present, for their magnificent contribution to our national security and for their sacrifice, about which we heard just a short time ago. TA100 is an excellent opportunity for the whole nation to recognise the distinguished role played by the Territorial Army over the years and to say thank you to the 35,000 men and women who serve and who are so vital to our defence effort at home and overseas.